MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Contributions from the Courts, the Executive and Parliament

2005· article· en· W3124782918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graham Gee, Grégoire Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueKing s Law Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentPolitical scienceLawExecutive powerPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The same-sex marriage debate in Canada has involved all three branches of government, including judgments from several provincial courts of appeal ruling the traditional definition of marriage to be contrary to the equality provision of the Canadian Charter. However, the Supreme Court has recently reversed this trend in declining to answer the question at the heart of the debate; namely, whether equality between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples requires that both have a claim to marriage. The authors argue that the Supreme Court, having opted to leave the debate to the political branches, has exercised the sort of decisional minimalism apt for such a contentious social and political question

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0400.014
Scholarly communication0.0180.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKing s Law JournalSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207