“BARBARIC” CULTURAL PRACTICES: CULTURALIZING VIOLENCE AND THE FAILURE TO PROTECT WOMEN IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, in 2015 garnered major critical attention across Canada. Amid an already tense climate of anti-immigrant sentiment in the post-9/11 era, the title chosen for the bill by the Conservative-led government catalyzed xenophobia, perpetuated the “us versus them” rhetoric, and culturalized violence. While originally touted as an opportunity to enhance protection for girls and women against the “foreign” horrors of polygamy, early and forced marriage, and “honour”-based killings, Bill S-7 instead fanned the flames of xenophobia on a mass level, failed to protect women, and, in fact, created higher risk of harms for women who are victims of gender- or family-based violence. In this commentary, we provide an overview of Bill S-7, the amendments to legislation made as a result of its passing, and some of its many problematic elements. We address the barriers to disclosing violence in racialized communities and subsequently provide suggestions on how to effectively address gender- and family-based violence in Canada in an effort to support survivors and prevent further harm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".