Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the various presumptions and arguments of Canadian courts in largely denying queer children a legal presence. An analysis of the intersection of homosexuality and children is explored with a view to arguing that legally, queer children deserve a voice. The author begins by outlining the development of the legal conceptualization of the "child". This conceptualization led to the notion of the child as innocent, and thus in need of protection. In comparison, homosexuals came to be characterized as "aberrant" and "predatory". Protecting children from homosexuals then became a simple step of logic, which ultimately led to the larger legal construction of the "nascently heterosexual" child. This presumption underlies many of the court decisions reached in this area, often leading to a complete failure on the part of the law to acknowledge and confront the complex and sensitive issues facing queer children. Heterosexual normalization and homosexual "abnormalization" pervades the legal landscape, such that any child exhibiting non-heterosexual tendencies is presumed to have been influenced by an "aberrant" and "predatory" homosexual adult. Legal institutions respond by "protecting" children from homosexual influences, thus denying these children access to gay norms and contexts. The author canvasses the manner in which major institutions and devices -- in the context of family and custody; religion; education; and harassment and verbal abuse -- are used to ensure the invisibility of the queer child. In conclusion, it is noted that while some courts are beginning to recognize the queer child, much progress is needed before the queer child is accorded full legal visibility. Number of Pages in PDF File: 36
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".