Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article explore l'impact juridique et discursif de R. c. Vriend (1998), la première décision de la Cour suprême canadienne clairement en faveur des droits des gays. Sans mettre en cause la victoire que constitue l'arrêt Vriend , il interroge le raisonnement de la Cour. Il adopte la perspective déconstructiviste de la théorie queer pour révéler le rôle du droit dans la création d'une catégorie ‘gaie/lesbienne’ aux frontières rigides et soulever la question de son influence durable sur le plan du discours. En s'appuyant sur des catégories fermées de l'identité sexuelle, l'encadrement juridique libéral de ‘l'orientation sexuelle’ dans Vriend renforce une hétérosexualité normative et préfère traiter des plaintes qui reflètent la réfraction légale de luttes contre l'homophobie en tant que demandes de droits de minorités. Le texte suggère une relation productive entre le droit et les acquis de la théorie et des politiques queer et offre quelques réflexions sur le projet de ‘queering law’ .
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Queer-theory legal analysis of a Supreme Court decision on sexual orientation; not about research.
The article analyzes queer theory and Canadian law rather than research practice.
Queer legal theory analysis of a Canadian rights case; object is law and identity, not research practice.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".