MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125800236

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Minister of Justice: Sex Equality and the Attack on R. v. Butler

2001· article· en· W3125800236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janine Benedet

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyCharterSupreme courtEconomic JusticeLawSociologyPolitical scienceProduct (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholars and philosophers spend much of their time discussing what pornography means and whether it can be defined. This debate persists despite the fact that most men, regardless of their sexual orientation, seem to understand quite well what pornography is, and what it is for: they produce it commercially, buy it in magazines, rent it in videos, and search for it on the Internet. The pornography industry has the distinct advantage of selling a product that, in legal terms, is considered "expression," and therefore a product that has been declared worthy of constitutional protection under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Minister of Justice challenges the interest of those who want the traffic in pornography to be completely unregulated. Fortunately, the Court in Little Sisters recognized pornography for what it is – the practice of sex inequality – and held that gays and lesbians were no less entitled to legal protections that attempt to limit the inequality that pornography inflicts. The author believes the explanation for this result can be found in the reasons why the Court unanimously recognized that same-sex pornography threatens, rather than promotes, equality rights. The underlying goal of the Little Sisters litigation was to attack the Butler decision by claiming that feminist arguments about pornography were wrong, and inevitably provoke restrictions on the "expression" of "minority sexual practices." This comment begins by setting out some of the facts in Little Sisters, and ends by arguing that gay and lesbian pornography is a threat to sex equality. It does this by examining some of the exhibits at issue in the appeal, on the basis that an appreciation of the range of materials that were potentially affected by the bookstore's claim is important in order to evaluate the claim fairly. It then outlines and critically evaluates the arguments that were advanced by the bookstore, and the intervener groups in support of it. Finally, it situates the Court's decision in this context. Mainly, it supports the Court's decision in Little Sisters, which confirmed most of the findings of the trial judge, but did not strike down the legislation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0250.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207