'Legal form' and the purchase of human rights discourse in domestic policy-making: the achievement of same-sex marriage in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the period 2003–05, law-makers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK took decisive action on the question of the legal status to be afforded to same-sex relationships. At one end of the spectrum, the Canadian Civil Marriage Act 2005 (commonly referred to as Bill C-38) reformulated the legal definition of marriage as ‘the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others’. At the other end of the spectrum, the Australian Marriage Amendment Act 2004 expressly added the traditional common law formulation of the definition of marriage to the Marriage Act 1961 (Aust): ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. In between these two extremes of full equality-based recognition and non-recognition are the partial separate but (almost) equal recognition approaches of the UK and New Zealand. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (UK) and the Civil Union Act 2004 (NZ) both provide for the legal recognition of a new ‘marriage-like’ relationship, while reserving the category of ‘marriage’ for heterosexual relationships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".