MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599027253

Civil Rights in Ordinary Tort Cases: Race, Gender, and the Calculation of Economic Loss

2005· article· en· W1599027253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martha Chamallas

Bibliographic record

VenueLoyola of Los Angeles law review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffDamagesRace (biology)TortPersonal injuryCivil rightsCompensation (psychology)Political scienceLawTort reformCritical race theorySociologyRacismGender studiesPsychologyLiabilitySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores race and sex bias in the computation of damages for loss of future earning capacity, an important component of economic loss in personal injury cases. It analyzes recent cases in the United States and in Canada which reject the use of race and sex-based tables to determine awards for female and minority plaintiffs and explains the method used by the special master in the September 11th Compensation Fund. Chamallas explores objections to reform -- from both the “right” and the “left” –- and makes the case for connecting civil rights principles to civil litigation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoyola of Los Angeles law reviewSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207