MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411066366 · doi:10.1017/cls.2024.36

The Death Penalty’s Abolition and Infanticide’s Invention: A Neglected Nexus

2025· article· en· W4411066366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn Strange

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)EconomicsLaw and economicsKeynesian economicsCriminologyPolitical scienceNeoclassical economicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Decades before Canada abolished the death penalty, it removed infanticide from the Criminal Code’s offences punishable by death. In 1948, this form of culpable homicide became punishable by imprisonment up to a maximum of three years. Although this statutory invention has been linked to the post-war rise in the pathologization of women’s violence and tied to legislators’ concerns over jury nullification, its nexus with the death penalty’s abolition has been overlooked. If the prospect of capital punishment did not deter women from killing their newborns, could the death penalty be justified for other forms of culpable homicide? Critics who posed this question about neonaticide wedged open the consideration of other forms of homicide and categories of offenders, undermining long standing certainties over the deterrent potency of capital punishment. Rather than a step in the abolition movement, the amendment merits acknowledgment as a significant move against the death penalty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.056
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207