Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter looks at translation and censorship, including the history of obscenity legislation, in Canada and Québec, a province that as a former French colony has a different legal tradition (Civil Code) than the British-influenced federal government of Canada (Common Law). It takes as its starting point Cohen&s;s (2001 : 8) broad definition of censorship: ‘the exclusion of some discourse as a result of a judgment by an authoritative agent based on some ideological predisposition&s; that is used to account for various types of control over interlinguistic discourse in the officially bilingual (English-French) Canadian and (unilingual French) Québec contexts. Examples of censorship examined are the forced linguistic and cultural assimilation of the country&s;s First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, federal and provincial language politics and policies, which attempt to silence French-speaking voices, as well as religious censorship in Québec. The broad overview concludes by encouraging research into the CBC/Radio-Canada and the NFB/ONF; community standards and the role of the public in determining what should be censored; the role of the Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation of Obscene Publications (1949) and the Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications (1923) on censorship in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".