MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945064787 · doi:10.3138/chr.2018-0082-4

Queering ’69: The Recriminalization of Homosexuality in Canada

2019· article· en· W2945064787 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tom Hooper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomosexualityQueerDecriminalizationMythologyLawCriminologyCriminal justiceQueer theoryState (computer science)VagrancyPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesHistoryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several efforts are underway to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada. The problem is that homosexuality was not decriminalized in 1969. This is a myth. The reform added an exception clause to the crimes of buggery and gross indecency that allowed queer sex in private between only two adults. This merely recognized the obvious; the state could not access the bedrooms of the nation using these provisions. At the same time, police forces across the country mobilized to charge queer people not only with gross indecency but also with other sections of the Criminal Code untouched by the omnibus bill, including indecent acts, vagrancy, and the bawdy-house law. When viewed from the perspective of queers and their interactions with the justice system, 1969 was a turning point, but not towards a more progressive society. Instead, it facilitated the recriminalization of homosexuality in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207