Courts, Liberalism, and Rights: Gay Law and Politics in the United States and Canada <i>and</i> The Case for Gay Rights: From <i>Bowers</i> to <i>Lawrence</i> and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Courts, Liberalism, and Rights: Gay Law and Politics in the United States and Canada. By Jason Pierceson. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005. 264p. $68.50 cloth, $22.95 paper. The Case for Gay Rights: From Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond. By David A. J. Richards. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005. 256p. $29.95. If one assesses the maturity, as well as legitimacy, of a field of study through the scholarship that it produces, these two excellent books—one by an established scholar (David A. J. Richards) and the other by a relative newcomer (Jason Pierceson)—show just how far gay rights, as a field of scholarly inquiry, has come in the last few decades. Both books provide compelling arguments on behalf of the view that liberal political theory, when coupled with vigorous judicial review, can provide previously marginalized groups, like sexual minorities, with meaningful rights of equality and autonomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".