An Annotated Bibliography of Law Review Articles Addressing Feminist Perspectives in 'Law in Literature'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ms. Pettinato provides a selective annotated bibliography covering law review articles that address the topic of “law in literature ” from a feminist perspective. She includes an essay that explains the motivation for the bibliography, the working definitions of law in literature and feminism used in its construction, and the methodology for finding and selecting articles for inclusion. [L]iterature has often been touted for its potential to upset what we take for granted, to open our eyes to our unacknowledged assumptions. In this respect, the law and literature movement shares much with feminist jurisprudence, which has also sought to uncover and to challenge hidden preconceptions—about such matters as truth, objectivity, or gender—that lurk within the law, often to the distinct detriment of women. 1 ¶1 Though the “law and literature ” movement arguably began in 1973 with the publication of James Boyd White’s seminal work The Legal Imagination, 2 only in the 1980s did it begin to gain acceptance as a legitimate area of inquiry in the legal academy. Since then, the movement has grown rapidly; at last count, eightyfour law schools in the United States and Canada offered at least one course in the
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.011 |
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".