MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W150129642 · doi:10.4324/9781315250557-13

Objection, Your Honour! Accommodating Niqab-Wearing Women in Courtrooms

2016· book-chapter· en· W150129642 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Bakht

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006, a lawyer named Shabnam Mughal represented a client at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in England. Ms Mughal is a Muslim and wore a niqab or full-face veil in public places. During her submissions, she was told by Judge George Glossop to remove her niqab because he could not hear her. Perhaps a more appropriate response to the legitimate concern of not being able to hear an advocate as she made her submissions would have been, ‘please speak up’. However, because such a request was not made, and because the lawyer refused to remove her veil,2 the case was adjourned and Mughal was replaced by a male lawyer from her firm.3

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207