Defining Moments for Women as Lawyers: Reflections on Numerical Gender Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years after the launching of the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, this comment focuses on the first continuing education workshop offered by the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1985 on the topic of women lawyers. The comment reflects on the aspirations and expectations of women lawyers in the mid-1980s, a time of many significant changes for law and for women's lives in Canada. In particular, the comment explains how the 1980s represented the first decade in which the numbers of women in law rapidly increased and how this demographic change fuelled expectations that increasing numbers of women practitioners would "make a difference" to the practice of law. In reflecting on the experiences of women lawyers in the two decades since the Journal first appeared, however, the comment suggests a need to re-imagine how women in law can "make a difference." Rédigé vingt ans après le lancement de la Revue Femmes et Droit, le présent commentaire traite du premier atelier de l'éducation permanente du Barreau du Haut-Canada offert en 1985 et ayant pour sujet les avocates. Ce commentaire porte sur les aspirations et les attentes des avocates au milieu des années 1980, une époque où se produisaient des changements marquants en droit et dans la vie des femmes au Canada. Le commentaire explique particulièrement comment les années 1980 ont représenté la première décennie durant laquelle le nombre de femmes en droit a augmenté rapidement et comment ce changement démographique a alimenté les attentes que l'augmentation du nombre de femmes pratiquant le droit « ferait une différence ».Enréfléchissant sur les expériences des avocates dans les deux décennies depuis la publication du premier numéro de la Revue, le commentaire suggère qu'il est temps de reconceptualiser la facçon dont les femmes en droit peuvent « faire une différence ».
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".