Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article utilizes Kendall Thomas’ psychoanalysis of judicial discourse to analyze the meaning and effect of two distinct judicial understandings of the homicide of Aaron Webster, a man who had been beaten to death by several young males in a Vancouver queer cruising area. In the reason for sentence in R. v. J.S., the judge gave a creative application to the law of enhanced sentencing when he acknowledged that the intended victims of the assault – ‘fucking voyeurs’ – could fall within the purview of ‘sexual orientation’. Striking a dissonant tone, the judge in the subsequent case, R. v. Cran, claimed that she found no evidence of hate motivation against gay men in the attack and that Webster’s reason for being in the park that night dressed only in his boots was literally unremarkable: ‘[Webster] was simply standing near a parking lot, smoking, naked’. By analyzing the trope of the scopic along with the instances of judicial dissonance, rhetorical excess and defensive posturing, claims of judicial rationality, neutrality and objectivity come under scrutiny.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".