Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chapter compares Canadian and U.S. legislative challenges. It delineates the 1983–1985 Canadian Fraser Committee’s liberal-conservative compromise, which rejected the women’s movement’s evidence-based demands that called for a civil rights approach like that endorsed by the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission. The minor, incremental change of the Fraser Committee’s recommendations is examined: the similarity to existing obscenity law and the reliance on general human rights legislation, as opposed to adopting specific legal measures that would recognize the intersectional grounds necessary to empower those victimized. Likewise, significant parliamentary attempts in 1986–1988 to reform Canadian obscenity law are assessed, including flaws such as “body-parts” definitional approaches that fail to acknowledge the context of subordination and various potentially overbroad provisions or loopholes. The chapter concludes that by contrast to its U.S. counterpart, the Canadian feminist anti-pornography movement lacked sufficient focus or political influence to impact legislative deliberations in the desired direction.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".