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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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