Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing prominence of child pornography as a matter of concern in the social, political and legal spheres, the relative lack of scholarly monographs which examine the subject from a critical legal perspective still comes as something of a surprise. It should be acknowledged that this situation is improving: in the last few years, a much needed mapping and interrogation of this heavily contested and highly politicized subject has begun to emerge via notable works such as those of Akdeniz and Ost.1 Set against this background, the latest contribution to the coherent and sustained critique of the law and policy in this area from Gillespie—a leading commentator in the field—is to be welcomed. Gillespie’s broadly stated aim is to ‘examine existing literature on child pornography and consider what implications this has on the law’ (page 1). To achieve this aim, he firstly considers the definition of child pornography, including virtual variants. He them moves to the criminalization of child pornography, which includes a consideration of comparative jurisdictions, namely the USA, Canada and Australia and also sections on (i) children who themselves are involved with the creation of child pornography and (ii) sentencing policy. A final focus considers the question of policing, as contextualized by national and international law and policy. As one might hope for, the text makes frequent references to decided cases, legislation and key policy documents as well as containing some discussion of statistical evidence (or lack thereof). However, one of the book’s key strengths is that it does not restrict itself to a narrow legal commentary but also draws on a broad and genuinely interdisciplinary body of material in order to locate and contextualise its subject matter. The bibliography provides a rich source of further information and is rewarding for the attentive reader. The text as a whole aims to provide a versatile and nuanced view of child pornography law and policy which will benefit a broad and international range of readerships. In my view, this aim is achieved, and I could readily conceive that such a work would be of interest to those interested in criminology, sociology, social work, sex offending, psychology, policing and probation as well as the more obvious markets of legal practitioners, academics and students.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".