ESSENTIALISM MAKES FOR STRANGE BEDMATES: THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF J.A. AND THE INTERVENTION OF L.E.A.F.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the recent case of R. v J.A, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that an unconscious person could not consent in advance to sexual touching. This paper reviews the majority reasoning and questions whether the intervention of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund [LEAF] penetrated the reasoning. The majority couched its reasoning in the interpretive tenets of judicial conservatism. Yet this conservatism aligned with the equality-based submissions of LEAF. Moments of such converging ideologies are relatively unique in the jurisprudence. This convergence is compared with a notable historical moment of convergence in the development of indecency and obscenity law in Canada. This time, however, LEAF’s rationales are more likely to meet little in the way of academic or activist critique because of the changing nature of identity politics in Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".