Book Review: Judging Homosexuals: A History of Gay Persecution in Quebec and France, by Patrice Corriveau; translated by Käthe Roth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SCHOLARS OF THE LAW'S CHANGING TREATMENT of those who engage in samesex intimacy often trace progress in terms of movement from the decriminalization of sodomy or "unnatural acts," through the enactment of anti-discrimination measures, to the recognition of same-sex marriage.At a recent conference on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, however, a fellow panelist of mine argued rightly that the journey starts higher upstream, so to speak, with the abolition of the death penalty for same-sex sexual activities.At least fi ve countries continue to impose the death penalty for at least some form of same-sex intercourse, while dozens more-many of them members in good standing of the Commonwealth-continue to imprison individuals for it.3 Patrice Corriveau's Judging Homosexuals: A History of Gay Persecution in Quebec and France traces the full trajectory of the journey in Quebec and France.Happily, writing about the abolition of the death penalty for sodomy in those jurisdictions is necessarily historical.Judging Homosexuals is a translation of La répression des homosexuels au Québec et en France: Du bûcher à la mairie, 4 a sociological and criminological study of the legal system's handling of homosexuality and same-sex conduct in
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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".