MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804427589 · doi:10.1177/1440783320969882

Marriage equality in Australia: The ‘no’ vote and symbolic violence

2020· article· en· W2804427589 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until December 2017, there were no legal provisions within the Commonwealth of Australia for same-sex couples to marry in the same sense that their heterosexual friends and family can. Civil unions provide similar legal protections as marriage, but many argue that this is not enough – that same-sex couples occupy a ‘second-class’ citizen status in relation to marriage. Many jurisdictions globally recognise marriage equality: the UK, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, to name but a few globally, and those societies most similar to Australia’s. This article explores the attitudes towards elements of marriage equality among a group of gay men in Australia. Despite the ‘yes’ vote for marriage equality polling about two-thirds of eligible voters, a slew of symbolically violent messages appeared, including ‘Vote No’ skywritten across the emblematic Sydney Harbour, and ‘Vote no to faggots’ graffiti etched across Sydney train carriages. The importance of love is key in defence against this symbolic violence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.292 · 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