Introduction: Symbolic Politics, Constitutional Consequences*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free expression that leads to the vibrant exchange of ideas is thought to be the very lifeblood of a democratic society. It appears self-evident that campuses, where even the most resolute ‘truths’ not only may but even should be examined and re-examined, are the nucleus of such a society. Despite this, campus speech has become a flashpoint for competing — some would say irreconcilable — demands. On the one hand is the view that some speech should not be tolerated in an environment that must embrace diversity that is also a hallmark of our advanced liberal democracy, and which should aim for the equality of its members. Per this argument, some members of the university community are treated unequally when speech that tends to reinforce their marginalization as members of a sub-dominant group is permitted. This view may also extend to pedagogical practice, and so we might identify the debate as to whether certain words are ipso facto impermissible, regardless of their intended purpose.2 *The phrase “symbolic politics” is drawn from Stephen Newman’s article (this issue).**Dr. Kate Bezanson is Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Brock University. Dr. Alison Braley-Rattai is Assistant Professor of Labour Studies at Brock University. Both hold LLMs (in Constitutional and Labour Law respectively) from Osgoode Hall’s Professional Development Program. The guest editors for this issue wish to thank the authors whose work appears in this issue, as well as Patricia Paradis, the Forum’s editor, the Forum’s copy editors, and footnote editors.2 Randall Kennedy, “How a Dispute Over the N-Word Became a Dispiriting Farce” (8 February 2019),online: The Chronicle of Higher Education [perma.cc/HR2L-8EAV].
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".