Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill C-36 (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) marks a turning point in Canada’s approach to addressing prostitution that was spurred by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, which declared the old approach unconstitutional. This proposed legislation was recently passed by the House of Commons and has already been pre-studied by the Senate. It is expected to become law in the coming weeks. Under the new approach, prostitution is no longer considered merely a nuisance, but is recognized as inherently exploitative. While “johns,” “pimps,” and human traffickers are criminally liable, prostitutes generally are not. This is the right approach to this complex issue. It represents a major shift in how the harms of prostitution are characterized and confronted in the criminal law. It will require substantial work from governments, police, and civil society to ensure effective implementation. This brief Commentary highlights the major differences between the old and new approaches to addressing prostitution in Canada, discusses the anticipated Charter challenge to this new legislation that advocates for legalized/decriminalized prostitution have threatened, and identifies the next steps that are needed to ensure the effective implementation of Bill C-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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".