Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 22, 2009, as renewed public controversy over Canada’s longstanding criminal prohibition of polygamy culminated in a constitutional reference to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC), Mormons and self-identified sluts found themselves in bed together. Although united in their desire for a common result — the striking down of the prohibition codified in section 293 of the Criminal Code — they differed radically in their underlying perspectives and interests. Mormons affiliated with the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) sought to defend patriarchal polygynous practices as part of their right to freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). Allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation within the polygynous FLDS community of Bountiful, British Columbia had triggered the reference and stood directly in the judicial spotlight. The sluts, many of whom identified with a movement known as ‘polyamory,’ also sought to defend a non-normative approach to conjugal relationships; one that rested not on the religious entrenchment of patriarchal values but rather on principles of personal autonomy, equality, and sex-positivity. Their practices of ethical non-monogamy were rooted, not in religious conviction but in a principled rejection of socially imposed monogamy and its associated culture of dishonesty, secrecy, and sexual shame. Far from the spotlight of the constitutional reference, this group found themselves in danger of becoming its collateral damage.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".