Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith … Ye blind guides, which strain at the gnat, and swallow a camel.Matthew 23, 23-24 progressive country, did so with its Civil Union Act 2004, which came into force on 26 April 2005, together with a plethora of Amendment Acts bringing civil union partners within the parameters of existing legislation. 2These Acts are New Zealand's response to the radical but still fairly recent shift in social attitudes towards gay and lesbian people, and same-sex couples, which has accorded us the values of human dignity and equality before the law.But as we will see, New Zealand law tolerates rather than celebrates this new ideal of social justice.With LGBT issues, New Zealand is a country that follows rather than leads. B. Positioning New Zealand's Approach to Civil UnionThough the categories cannot be precisely drawn, it is possible to distinguish three basic approaches to the creation of institutions for same-sex couples, which can be registered with the state. 3 MarriageA small but steadily increasing number of countries have opened up marriage itself to same-sex couples.Legislatively or judicially this has happened in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada and the US states of Massachusetts and Connecticut.South Africa is also a member of this group, though its judicially mandated legislation 4 creates a marriage regime that is open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples without removing the existing marriage regime (governed by different legislation) that remains restricted to opposite-sex couples. 2
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".