Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book elaborates on a counterintuitive idea.Religious conservativism in family law could have more in common with queer politics than liberal politics, with queer designating "whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant [as t]here is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers" (Halperin 1995, 62).I focus on a specific illustration of this idea, by looking at certain nonmarital regimes introduced in the West from the end of the nineties with the goal of obstructing marriage equality.1Laws open to friends and/or relatives were enacted by same-sex marriage opponents, for instance, in Alberta, Vermont, Hawai'i, Victoria, Tasmania, and New Zealand.Similar laws have been defined " [t]he backlash version of the embracing of domestic partnerships" (Boyd & Young 2003, 768).The mobilization of the conservative groups behind them was not animated by a desire to promote plural family values and recognize a larger set of families.The idea was to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples while at the same time preserving traditional marriage, as well as diluting the symbolic value of same-sex couple recognition into a larger basket of desexualized relationships. 2 Yet, such reforms virtually aligned with a queer ambition to debunk stereotypes around family.Amongst these stereotypes is the sexual and romantic nature of the union, challenged by the recognition of committed unions of adult friends and relatives (non-conjugal couples).The recognition of non-conjugal families is a worthwhile project from the perspective of queer politics.There is a fascinating body of literature on the much-needed shift in law's focus from sex to care. 3 By reducing law's attachment to sexual relationships, these theories suggest, law could finally also recognize non-conjugal families where important caretaking work occurs.In Canada, the debate was sparked by the seminal work of the Law Commission of Canada, an independent federal law reform agency advising the government to shift law's Electronic
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.010 |
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".