MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189648436

Freedom of Sexual Orientation in India

2008· article· en· W2189648436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kartikey Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomosexualitySexual orientationLawLesbianPolitical scienceConstitutionArgument (complex analysis)SociologyGender studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These days, the talk about sexual minority rights is growing momentum. Homosexuality has found acceptance in many countries such a United Kingdom, United States and Canada. Most of these countries are economically developed. Whether such a quality is necessary for any society to accept homosexuality might remain a possibility although some religious interpretations might prohibit it altogether. Recently, homosexuality has become a hotly debated issue in India since the filing of criminal charges against Non-governmental Organizations working for the betterment of homosexuals. The law that has come into focus in section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although the law per se does not prohibit homosexuality, it prohibits non-procreative sex. This too is limited to the gay community. The law does not even seem to dwell even for a second the possibility of lesbianism. Till date, the law has been used mainly against the male gender although there have been instances where they have been applied against lesbians and transsexuals. However, there is no case where a homosexual person has been jailed due to his/her sexual preference, having consented to sexual intercourse. The law has mostly been used against child predators. The government has taken the stance that removing the law will take away the only law that deals with pedophiles. However, this remains an unsatisfactory argument since other sections of the I.P.C could be amended so as to include such a provision. Also, the fact remains that the law seeks to infringe Article 21 of the Constitution of India which gives every citizen of India, the right to privacy. However, privacy in Govind v. State of M.P was restricted to pro-creative activities. Therefore, even though homosexuality is far from dominant an issue, it remains a sensitive issue in this country. The consequences of legalizing it could lead to great political ramifications and would require great will to bring about. Hence, the authors propose to examine homosexuality in India under two headings (i) constitutionality; and (ii) ethicality. We hope to generate a debate on whether something constitutional can outweigh anything unethical and also try to imagine the situation if Section 377 is amended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207