Changing prostitution discourse in Canadian common law from 2010 to 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the first iteration of prostitution legislation in 1759, the language and discourses used to refer to ???prostitution??? has undergone many changes. The constitutional challenge of Bedford v. Canada (2010 ONSC 4264) resulted in legislative amendments of prostitution laws (Bill C-36). Bill C-36, implemented in 2014, resulted in several significant changes, including the eradication of the word ???prostitution??? from the Criminal Code, and the criminalization of buying, but not selling, sexual services. Given Bill C-36, this research inquires: How has prostitution discourse changed in Canadian common law from 2010 to 2018? A discourse analysis of 58 court decisions compared the language used before and after 2014; this revealed courts??? frameworks for understanding sex work have not changed significantly despite the Bedford ruling, since exploitation remains the major discursive underpinning. The theoretical framework integrates anti-carceral feminist theory and governmentality, to render visible the marginalization, discrimination and stigmatization of the paternalistic punitive system on sex workers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".