Who is harmed by fantasy? A deliberative and Charter analysis of Canada's pornography law.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper interrogates the breadth, necessity, and collateral effects of Canada’s child pornography law, as contained in the Criminal Code. The author argues that the inclusion of “fantasy” images in the definition of child pornography is over-inclusive, and considers that this may make the law illegitimate and discriminatory. She proposes that this over-inclusive definition arises from the conflation of a particular type of sexual desire with harm to children. The author draws loosely on deliberative democratic theory to structure her analysis of the law’s legitimacy, and uses Charter analysis to both critique the current law and suggest means of addressing the law’s potentially discriminatory character. The author does not support or promote sexual abuse or exploitation of children, nor does she suggest that child pornography should be wholly de-regulated or de-criminalized. Note: This paper was completed in April 2015. Due to current employment restrictions on updating the research, the case law and legislation cited herein are current to that date only.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".