Bigamists meet polygamists: Confronting the popular image of bigamists in Canadian society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1985, the Canadian Law Reform Commission recommended to keep both polygamy and bigamy as criminal offences. Its rational to still outlaw polygamy rested on the grounds that such an accommodation would support patriarchal religious practices denigrating women, while bigamy as a criminal offence had its roots in two fundamental institutions of Canadian society: marriage and the family. Two different crimes, but in the mind of the Canadian population they are often blurred. The popular image of bigamists involve family men juggling two wives, a few children, and two homes, each family not knowing of the existence of the other. If we do not imagine this kind of “double life”, at the very least, the first impulse is to picture a male villain, a scoundrel. This hardly corresponds to the reality. A systematic study of bigamy cases brought to legal authorities in a number of Canadian local jurisdictions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries reveals that very few of the prosecuted bigamists led a “double life”.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.081 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".