Bibliographic record
Abstract
The successful legalization of same-sex marriage in Ireland has provided a model for the legalization of same-sex marriage in China. The process of legalizing same-sex marriage in Ireland began in 1993 when Ireland decriminalized private and consensual sexual activity. It took 22 years for Ireland to achieve success in legalizing same-sex marriage through a nationwide referendum in 2015. Due to differences in history, culture, religious beliefs, and social systems, China may not be able to replicate the exact experience of legalizing same-sex marriage in Ireland. However, China can still learn from a comparative study and draw valuable lessons to protect the marriage rights of the homosexual population in China. China can benefit from these experiences by implementing similar initiatives to educate the public and promote LGBTQ+ rights. By raising awareness, dispelling stereotypes, and fostering dialogue, China can gradually overcome social stigmas and create a more inclusive environment for its LGBTQ+ community. Additionally, legal frameworks and protections can be established to ensure the equal treatment of same-sex couples. Irish legislation not only legalized same-sex marriage but also granted same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, including adoption and inheritance rights. China can examine these legal provisions and adapt them to its own context, working towards creating a fair and equitable legal framework for same-sex couples. Furthermore, engaging in international dialogue and cooperation can also be beneficial for China's path towards legalizing same-sex marriage. Learning from the experiences of other countries, including Ireland, and collaborating with international organizations can provide valuable insights and support. In conclusion, while China may not be able to replicate Irish exact path to legalizing same-sex marriage, it can draw inspiration and learn from Irish experiences. By promoting awareness, fostering dialogue, enacting inclusive legal frameworks, and engaging in international cooperation, China can work towards protecting the marriage rights of its LGBTQ+ community and creating a more inclusive society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".