Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to examine the explanations offered within the judicial imaginary to account for the desires of improper sexual subjects. I will consider primarily Canadian caselaw to investigate how the judicial imaginary makes sense of contested sexual practices by resorting to three interlocking sites of belonging and exclusion: gender, nation and humanness. I start by considering the gender imperatives perpetuated by the judicial analysis of contested sexual practices. I next consider how the Canadian courts circumscribe and limit the adjudicating national community, homogenizing Canadian sexual identity, and otherizing or marginalizing those whose sexuality does not fit within these discursive borders. Finally, I consider how these gender and national identity imperatives buttress judicially-articulated human imperatives, expunging practitioners of non-normative sexual behaviour from the category of human altogether. Ultimately, I argue that these judicial imperatives perpetuate the harm of what has been called sexual chauvinism, discriminating, devaluing and dehumanizing individuals based on their sexual practices, usually grounded upon stereotypes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".