MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polygamy, Monogamy, and Marriage Justice

2015· book-chapter· en· W4251419118 on OpenAlex
Stephen Macedo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrinceton University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecriminalizationSupreme courtVariety (cybernetics)Economic JusticePluralLawCriminologyNormativePolitical scienceCriminal justiceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines a variety of principled factors that help to distinguish plural marriage from same-sex marriage as a matter of both justice and constitutional principle. It also reviews the substantial body of evidence that led the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a 2012 landmark case, to uphold Canada's criminal prohibition on polygamy. It argues that this evidentiary record, while certainly not beyond challenge, stands in contrast to the abstract and moralistic arguments advanced against the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. It asserts that polygamy as a widespread practice, or normative system, appears to be incongruent with efforts to secure the preconditions of equal liberty and fair opportunity for all. The chapter concludes by speculating on what the consequences of decriminalization will be for polygamy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.202 · 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