Bibliographic record
Abstract
in the area of so-called "strip-tease nude" sets. 2 The case of People v. Fried,' decided by New York's intermediate appellate court in March 1963, involved "strip-tease nude" sets.Two years earlier, in May 1961, the New York Court of Appeals, divided twotwo-three, had held, in the case of People v. Richmond County News, Inc., 4 that only "hard core" was actionable obscenity in the Empire State.Immediately following that decision, trial judges hearing obscenity charges had become cautious, most feeling compelled to dismiss cases involving pictures other than those depicting sexual activity or revealing clearly exposed pubic area.Then came the Fried case in which a misdemeanor conviction for the sale of "strip-tease nudes" (and other items) was sustained.A month after this rare appellate victory for law enforcement, New York State Court of Appeals Judge Stanley Fuld, whose opinions in the obscenity area mark him as New York's most permissive high court judge, at least in the area of alleged pornography, denied leave to appeal to the state's highest tribunal.In July 1963, Mr. Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court stayed Fried's jail sentence, until the Supreme Court could rul on Fried's certiorari petition.Almost a year thereafter, on June 22, 1964, split six to three, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 5Consequently, more than two years subsequent to his conviction, Fried was finally committed to serve his 2 "Strip-tease nude" sets are generally four to six pictures, each picture showing the same woman (and some showing two or more women) in various stages of undress. 318 App.Div.2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 742 (1st Dep't 1963) (memorandum decision).49 N.Y.2d
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".