Les femmes juges feront-elles veritablement une difference? Reflexions sur leur presence depuis vingt ans a la Cour supreme du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteures reprennent la célèbre question de Madame la juge Bertha Wilson « Est-ce que les femmes juges feront une différence? » afin de présenter quelques pistes de réflexion au sujet de la répartition des opinions judiciaires des femmes qui siègent à la Cour suprême depuis les vingt dernières années. Premièrement, elles analysent des statistiques afin de démontrer que celles qui portent le titre de juge ont occupé une position unique au sein de la plus haute instance judiciaire du Canada en écrivant une très large proportion des opinions dissidentes. En second lieu, elles posent une série de questions afin de guider une étude plus approfondie permettant d'indiquer plus précisément la nature véritable de la « différence » des femmes juges et, potentiellement, d'autres groupes sociaux historiquement sous-représentés au sein du corps judiciaire canadien. The authors ask the notorious question posed by Justice Bertha Wilson "will women judges make a difference?" to present some reflections about the judicial voting patterns of the women who sat at the Supreme Court of Canada in the last twenty years. First, they analyze the statistics to demonstrate that women judges have occupied a unique position within the highest judicial institution of Canada by writing a very large proportion of dissenting opinions. Second, they ask a number of questions to guide a deeper study about the true nature of the "difference" that women judges make and, potentially, of members of groups historically underrepresented among the Canadian judiciary.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".