"Anatomy by Braille": An Annotated Bibliography of Canadian Young Adult Literature about Emerging Sexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume: Meme si, dans le domaine de la litterature de jeunesse, l'on ne peut signaler aucune poursuite judiciaire invoquant la nouvelle loi sur la pornographic enfantine (section 163 du Code criminel canadien), il n'en reste pas moins vrai que celle-ci pourrait mettre en cause le libre acces a plusieurs romans pour adolescents. Dans cette optique, l'auteur examine un echantillonnage d'oeuvres recentes et deja celebres qui traitent de la sexualite des adolescents; elle conclut que les scenes dites explicites sont essentielles a la structure, au sens et a la comprehension de chacun des romans repertories. Summary: No Canadian literature for young adults seems to have been recently challenged under Canada's obscenity law (Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code). As teenagers are interested in their developing human sexuality, many of the novels directed to them do contain sexually explicit material. The intersection of young adult reading interests, the values of some adults connected with teens and the emphasis on community standards in Section 163, gives rise to a tension that could result in potential challenges to materials. A sample of award winning and otherwise notable Canadian young adult novels which contain some sexually implicit content is presented. Without exception the inclusion of this material was found to be an important part of each work that helped to further the theme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".