Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chapter compares Canadian and U.S. judicial challenges, tracing the development of Canada’s unconventional harm-based criminal obscenity law under the 1982 Charter’s substantive equality guarantees. It highlights the Canadian Supreme Court intervener LEAF—a women’s organization instrumental in Butler (1992), where the law was saved as an equality provision against freedom of expression challenges. Butler is contrasted with the more categorical U.S. First Amendment law. Despite Butler’s promises, it is shown that since then, pornographers have mainly been protected by Canadian courts, which use desensitized contemporary standards, flawed empirical evidence, surgically inserted loopholes, and wishy-washy judicial reasoning where harm is concerned. In light of LEAF’s successful intervention, the civil rights model is explored as an alternative to criminal law that would better represent the groups whose interests are most threatened by pornography—groups with substantially stronger incentives than the government to invest time and effort in challenging the pornography industry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".