MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3154278462

Legalizing Gay Sex

2021· article· en· W3154278462 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hannah Riley Duke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianQueerTransgenderCriminal codeLawLegislatureParliamentPolitical scienceHomosexualityCriminologySociologyGender studiesCriminal lawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Lennon-Dearing and Delavaga (2015, p. 412), “there has been a dramatic increase in anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender legislative initiatives in Canada within the last several years. This policy brief discusses the complexities and contradictions associated with the relationship of policy, laws and same-sex intercourse. Although there is no law in Canada prohibiting same-sex intercourse, there are many legal discriminations and criminal regulations that negatively influence the lives of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer community (LGBTQ+) and other related communities in Canada (Smith, 2020). This brief is intended to direct Canadian Parliament in altering section 159 of the Criminal Code, which states the Legal Age of Consent for anal sex is 18 years old, unless it is an act engaged in, in private, between husband and wife” (Library of Parliament, 2017; Smith, 2020). This is discriminatory towards the LGBTQ+ community because the Legal Age of Consent in Canada is 16 years old (Smith, 2020). This brief recommends removing section 159 from Canada’s Criminal Code, expungement of Criminal Records of those charged with offences related to anal intercourse, and education for policymakers on the LGBTQ+ community

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw in Society and Culture→French-language works237,207→