Gender Equality and Lawyers Work: Education as a Strategy for Change in the Legal Profession?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1993 report, Touchstones for Change, the Canadian Bar Association's Task Force on Gender Equality in the Legal Profession (chaired by former justice Bertha Wilson) identified problems of inequality for women in the Canadian legal profession. Among other recommendations, the Task Force suggested that the profession should provide continuing "remedial human rights" educational programmes for lawyers until these norms "form the basis of a common understanding" within the profession. For several years between 1994 and 1997, I designed and implemented gender equality seminars for three major corporate law firms in Toronto, and offered these seminars to groups of their lawyers on more than 40 occasions. In previous work on this subject, I have reflected on the pedagogical challenges of gender equality educational programmes in the law firm context (Onati proceedings: 1999), and the extent to which the history of women's entry to the profession did not fundamentally challenge its gendered norms. In this paper, I assess how educational programmes must confront directly the nature of legal work and its increasing "asynchronisity" (Franklin The Real World of Technology) in order to contribute to a strategy of gender equality goals in the legal profession.
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 | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".