Mormonism: Harm, Human Rights, and the Criminalization of Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W ith the Utah conviction (eventually overturned) of fundamentalist Mormon 1 leader Warren Jeffs on two counts of rape as an accomplice, 2 and quashed indictments in British Columbia against two fundamentalist leaders (James Oler and Winston Blackmore) for allegedly practicing polygamy, 3 heated legal and social debates are occurring over what societies’ responses should be to polygamy 4 in general and its fundamentalist Mormon version in particular. Child welfare is the most sensitive concern around polygamy issues, and this concern was at the center of the decision by officials in Texas’s Department of Family and Protective Services to coordinate with law enforcement in raiding the fundamentalist Mormons’ Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado on April 3, 2008. 5 A raft of other controversial issues exist, however, around the practice, related to sexual, physical, medical, educational, and emotional abuse as well as financial malfeasance. Moreover, polygamy is a felony in both the United States and Canada, practiced (according to various accounts) by anywhere between 21,000 to 100,000 fundamentalist Mormon polygamists in the two countries (with additional practitioners in Mexico). 6 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".