MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6940734873 · doi:10.11575/prism/25108

Bench-Breakers? Women Judges in Prairie Canada 1916 - 1980

2014· other· en· W6940734873 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2014
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSuffrageLegal professionWelfareWork (physics)Social workAgency (philosophy)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Between 1916 and 1980 a small number of women magistrates and judges adjudicated in courtrooms across the Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Often they worked in “family court,” through its historic incarnations including juvenile courts, women’s courts, and domestic relations tribunals. The first of these women, practicing between 1916 and 1935, included magistrates Emily Murphy and Alice Jamieson in Alberta, and judge Jean Ethel MacLachlan in Saskatchewan. None of these women held law degrees or membership within the legal profession, but all three had a “motherly outlook.” Murphy and Jamieson’s expertise was derived from their leading roles in influential women’s organizations and connections to the suffrage and dower campaigns. MacLachlan’s authority developed from her remunerated work with the Children’s Aid Society, and she received significant support from the Regina Local Council of Women. They worked within quasi-judicial courts, associated with volunteer-based social welfare initiatives, appended on to, rather than integrated into, existing established legal institutions. During the 1930s, these Prairie women magistrates and judges lost their positions in the midst of economic and professional rearrangements. In the meanwhile, a vibrant women’s legal culture, assisted by developments in legal education and professionalism, emerged to provide the basis for a rebirth of women judges in the 1950s. The next cohort of Prairie women judges was appointed to the bench beginning in 1957 with Nellie McNichol Sanders. In common with their early-twentieth century precursors, the media often positioned women judges as “role mothers” by highlighting their maternal, rather than professional, suitability for the courtroom even though all women judges held law degrees and were members of provincial law societies. Illustrative of continued connections with the volunteer sector, these women judges pursued human rights and advocated the re-dressing of inequitable laws and customs for children, women, and other vulnerable groups including Aboriginal persons. At the same time, women judges’ individual perspectives suggest discord with the egalitarian goals of the late 1960s and early 1970s women’s movement, and reveal that not all women judges were feminist actors. In the final analysis, this dissertation uses an unconventional timeline to argue that Prairie women judges were part of a broader movement of change associated with continuities and changes in the women’s movement and in legal professionalism. Women judges worked within the prescriptions imposed by their times, contemporary legal codes, and society’s expectation of family courts. Their public work in the Prairie Provinces reveals that legal and social change was influenced by local, national, and international influences; change did not move uniformly from Ontario to the West.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,048
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,975

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,153
Écart entre enseignants0,148 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePRISM (University of Calgary)Même sujetMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsTravaux en français237 207