Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abortion rights in Canada seem both too small and too big for law, or perhaps we only think so because of how we think about law, which confirms the view that we are better off without it. Maybe then we should ask a different question: is there an abortion rights law to which we would say yes? Can we imagine a statutory scheme, or, more provocatively, a legislative package, with a radically reimagined role for the state and its power? Could law assemble the diverse experiences of abortion into something material rather than abstract? Could law create a care infrastructure to support people in all their reproductive decisions and throughout their reproductive lives: the right to end a pregnancy, the right to continue one, and the right to parent your child in a safe and healthy environment? Wouldn’t we say yes to a law that holds space for this political future? In Canada, this is no speculative imagination. Our Supreme Court accepts that constitutional futures can take shape in innovative laws that affirm and reach ahead to our political aspirations. We need only make them.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".