Borowiec: Exploring Infanticide, "a particularly dark corner" and Providing Another Reminder of the Need for Reforming Homicide Sentencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borowiec is a restrained judgment, inviting reactions along the continuum from enthusiastic support to virulent condemnation. This controversy is entirely predictable, traceable from the ancient roots of the practice of infanticide through to the relatively new offence in the Criminal Code. Nonetheless, the framing of the discussion on the existence and conditions of the offence has gradually evolved and the case invites further reflection. Some will herald Borowiec's compassionate and equality promoting implications, for it clarifies and smooths the path for the few desperate women charged with infanticide. Others will excoriate the case, characterizing it as a continued betrayal of the citizenship and humanity of the most vulnerable of child victims. There are plausible elements in these contrasting outlooks, with numerous other perspectives on the spectrum of opinion. Owing to this being the first time the Supreme Court of Canada has considered the elements of the sociologically and legally complex offence of infanticide, Borowiec should command attention well beyond its ostensible principal role, as a modest but overdue instance of statutory interpretation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".