Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bertha Wilson’s appointment as the first female justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1982 capped off a career of firsts. Wilson had been the first woman lawyer and partner at a prominent Toronto law firm and the first woman appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Her death in 2007 has, in turn, provoked reflection on her contributions to law and the legal profession and raised the question, what difference do women judges make?\nJustice Bertha Wilson examines Wilson’s career through three distinct frames and from a wide range of feminist perspectives. In “Foundations” contributors evince Wilson’s contributions to the building blocks of the legal system, including to property law, contract law, and fiduciary duties; in “Controversy” they examine Wilson’s role in high-profile, controversial decisions on issues such as prostitution, criminal defence, and child custody. The final section, “Reflections,” assesses Wilson’s credentials as a feminist judge and her impact on the legal profession and judicial education.\nThis timely, evocative book highlights Wilson’s contributions to the Canadian legal landscape and addresses many of the issues that Wilson grappled with in her life and career. A nuanced portrait of a complex woman, it will appeal to lawyers, judges, policy makers, academics, and anyone interested in law and women’s contributions to Canadian society.\nA nuanced portrait of a complex woman, it will appeal to lawyers, judges, policy makers, academics, and anyone interested in law and women’s contributions to Canadian society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".