MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533865971

Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court: Legal Mobilization and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (review)

2005· article· en· W1533865971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Koshan

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSupreme courtHumanitiesEthnologyLawSociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans l'ouvrage intitule Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court: Legal Mobilization and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Christopher Manfredi examine le role des feministes au Canada dans l'obtention et la protection des droits a l'egalite garantis par la Charte ainsi que leur mobilisation en faveur de la theorie de l'egalite substantive par des contestations judiciaires strategiques. Apres une breve discussion de l'engagement feministe dans le processus d'amendement constitutionnel, l'ouvrage se concentre sur le travail du Fonds d'action et d'education juridiques (le FAEJ) et evalue ses victoires et ses defaites devant les tribunaux, dans ses propositions de reformes du droit et au sein du mouvement feministe au Canada. Il manque, toutefois, a cet ouvrage les voix des membres du FAEJ et il en resulte un recit partiel du travail du FAEJ, de ses succes, de ses echecs et de ses engagements dans les debats portant sur la mobilisation en droit. De plus, l'objectif plus large de Manfredi de contribuer a la comprehension de la contestation juridique en general est neanmoins confine par les conclusions qui peuvent etre tirees de son analyse du FAEJ. Cela dit, l'ouvrage est une source importante de documentation au sujet du FAEJ qui informera plusieurs personnes et servira d'excellente base de donnees pour des recherches plus approfondies. In Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court: Legal Mobilization and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Christopher Manfredi considers the role of Canadian feminists in securing and protecting equality guarantees in the Constitution and their mobilization of the doctrine of substantive equality through strategic litigation. After a brief discussion of feminist engagement in the constitutional amendment process, the book focuses on the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and evaluates its wins and losses in the courts, in law reform advocacy, and within the Canadian feminist movement. Feminist Activism suffers somewhat from the absence of LEAF voices, resulting in a partial account of LEAF's work, its successes and failures, and its implications for debates about legal mobilization. Moreover, Manfredi's goal of contributing to the understanding of legal mobilization more broadly is limited to the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis of LEAF. Nevertheless, Feminist Activism is an important source of material about LEAF that will be informative to many readers and an excellent database for further research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207