Theorizing Civil Domestic Violence Legislation in the Context of Restructuring: A Tale of Two Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article analyse et compare les lois civiles portant sur la violence conjugale adoptees par la Saskatchewan et l'Alberta, en se concentrant sur l'aide d'urgence mise a la disposition des femmes, victimes de violence. Les auteures tracent l'emergence de cette reponse legislative dans le contexte de la restructuration economique et politique au Canada durant les annees 1980 et 1990 et identifient les distinctions entre les approches neo-liberales et neo-conservatrices en Saskatchewan et en Alberta respectivement, par rapport a la violence conjugale. Les auteures decrivent egalement le contexte des reformes etatiques entreprises, de facon plus generale, par rapport a la violence faite aux femmes, tout en tenant compte des luttes feministes exigeant l'intervention de l'Etat en cette matiere ainsi que des critiques feministes subsequentes. En procedant a l'examen des phenomenes de la «familialisation», de la privatisation et de la criminalisation, les auteures identifient les avantages et les limites de cette approche a la violence faite aux femmes et elles signalent les nuances, les contradictions et les tensions, internes et externes, entre les ideologies neo-liberales et neo-conservatrices. Puisque les auteures reconnaissent que les lois civiles portant sur la violence conjugale ont ete benefiques pour certaines femmes, les auteures ne pronent pas leur abrogation, mais elles explorent des reformes qui pourraient les rendre plus sensibles aux besoins des femmes qui subissent de la violence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".