Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2013 a judge of the Indian Supreme Court recriminalized homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code by overturning the Delhi High Court’s earlier decriminalization of it. The Supreme Court judgment declined to even engage the constitutional reasoning adduced by the Delhi High Court when it “read down” 377 “in order to decriminalize private, adult, consensual sexual acts.”3This reasoning argued that 377 infringed Article 14 of the Constitution, “which deals with the fundamental right to equality” and “Article 15, which deals with the fundamental right to nondiscrimination” and “Article 21, which covers the fundamental right to life and liberty, including privacy and dignity.” Simply disregarding the specifics of this reason-ing, the judgment showed what a former judge of the Delhi High Court has termed an “exaggerated deference to a majoritarian Parliament.” In other words, it violated a fun-damental right by citing the numerical minority of the homo-sexual community. Rather than a republican commitment to fostering a polity whose majorities and minorities were shaped by debates around legally protected values it was the numerical majority of the mob that determined the law. In this the Supreme Court bent its knee before the leaderships of every religious community in India—legions of offended holy men—who, over the four previous years since the Delhi High Court’s judgment had been smugly defending what they claimed were the (heteronormative) traditions of a primordial and changeless group. What is the pre-history of such offense as it comes to form communities or harden their presumed edges? In answering this question this essay aims to specify the importance of the humanities to post-colonial South Asia.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.422 | 0.214 |
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".