MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258265011

Review of Sexual Science and the Law

2008· article· en· W2258265011 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard M. Dickens

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternalismSpeculationLawPsychologyCriminal lawPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the book Sexual Science and the Law Andrew Green tackles sex-linked themes that have become overburdened with stereotypical, intuitive, ill-informed, uninformed, and often alarmist legal reactions conditioned by conservative, parentalistic (usually paternalistic) attitudes. His review of the characteristics and origins of sexual behaviours, their consequences, and how courts have responded to them provides rich material for reflection on how courts reach decisions, the range of legitimate speculation that should influence judicial dispositions, and how laws might be reformed in light of what is known about human behaviour concerning sexual and related matters. The book also offers students and practitioners of family, criminal, and medical law a good sense of the type of expert testimony that may be invoked to explain backgrounds to events, and the foreseeable consequences of the different orders that judges can make.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207