Bibliographic record
Abstract
The polygamy charges laid in the settlement of Bountiful, British Columbia, in January 2009, give rise to questions about the particular mischief of the polygamy offence in section 293 of Canada's Criminal Code. This article argues that, as a result of developments within related areas of law, polygamy's mischief under the current wording of the section is virtually inscrutable. When used, this section has principally served as a mechanism to discipline socially and politically marginalized groups. Developments in family law over the last forty years have generated a host of exceptions to the application of the polygamy section, including religious marriage, unmarried cohabitation, and adulterous relationships. Furthermore, the wording of the polygamy section hinges upon a key concept--conjugality--which derives its meaning from family law, and, in this domain, the concept of conjugality has degenerated to the point of unintelligibility. As a result, the targeted harm in the polygamy provision is rendered vague. In its jurisprudential and social context, section 293 is unconstitutional under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the provision should be declared void for vagueness. The article presents alternatives to the criminalization of polygamy in order to address concerns about the vulnerabilities of women and children living within oppressive polygamous relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".