MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776651699

Book Review: Policing Sexuality: Sex, Society and the State

2011· article· en· W2776651699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Flora Renz

Bibliographic record

VenueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityState (computer science)CriminologySociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do states regulate sexuality?This is the question Julian C.H. Lee asks at the beginning of this wide ranging discussion of the legal and social regulation of sex and sexuality by the state.Using case studies from countries as diverse as Malaysia, Turkey and the UK, Lee provides an introduction to sexuality and its regulation which should be accessible even to laypeople and does certainly provide some interesting insights even to those with an academic background in law, politics or sexuality.In its intention to illustrate the regulation of sexuality with case studies from different countries this book is comparable to Rosie Harding's recent book Regulating Sexuality: Legal consciousness in lesbian and gay lives (2010) which explores some of the more recent legal reforms affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning (LGBTIQ) people in Britain, the US and Canada.However Lee's book distinguishes itself by including women's rights in his analysis of sexuality and also considering a much wider range of countries and issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKent Academic Repository (University of Kent)Same topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207