Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Wolfenden Committee’s mandate was to consider whether legal changes were necessary, the first document outlines the state of the law in 1954. This Home Office memorandum [i(a)] describes the three principal statutes that could ensnare men committing homosexual acts in England and Wales: sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 (sodomy and attempted sodomy); section 11 (the Labouchère Amendment) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 (gross indecency); and section 1 of the Vagrancy Act of 1898 (persistent soliciting and importuning). (By the time that the Committee reported in 1957, the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 had consolidated and replaced much of this legislation.) The second memorandum, from the Scottish Home Department [i(b)], points out that only the 1885 statute applied to Scotland as well. Instead, unlucky males committing sexual acts with other males might fall foul of the common law or of provisions in the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act of 1902 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1912. 1 The third document, courtesy of Sir John Nott-Bower, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [i(c)], provides more detail about the offences, about the potential penalties and about the statistics of arrests, charges and sentences for 1953 in London—including additional ways of targeting homosexuals: municipal by-laws for gross indecency and the use of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 to clean up indecent or disorderly conduct in pubs. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.310 | 0.135 |
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".