Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article aims to complicate efforts to make law fit or catch up to social practices. It scrutinizes the ‘reflective claim’ using the case study of recognition of parenting by lesbian couples. Reforms in the United Kingdom’s Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008 and the Canadian province of Quebec’s civil code are compared with empirical work from the social sciences on lesbians’ family practices. The reflective claim rests on problematic ideas about social practices and law. Since law is always blunt and incomplete, choices must be made as to which practices it should aim to recognize. Furthermore, the impact of heterosexist and homophobic conditions on lesbian families means that observable practices may not be a suitable model for gay-affirmative reforms. As advanced in the literature, the reflective claim overlooks law and society’s complex interaction, including how reform will not merely reflect but also alter practices. It fails to do justice to law reform’s normative character, obscuring its costs and positive potential.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".