MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269312455

Introduction - Calling for Change: Women, Law and the Legal Profession

2006· article· en· W2269312455 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth A. Sheehy

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Legal educationLegal professionLawPolitical scienceDiversity (politics)AccountabilitySociologyGender studiesHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1993, the Canadian Bar Association [CBA] Task Force on Gender Equality in the Legal Profession, headed by the Honourable Bertha produced the first national examination of the situation of women lawyers in Canada. Touchstones for Change: Equality, Diversity and Accountability generated accolades and denunciations from within and outside the profession. It also generated momentum for change. In March 2004, to mark the ten-year anniversary of Touchstones and in recognition of International Women's Day, the Shirley Greenberg Professorship in Women and the Legal Profession and the Human Rights Research and Education Centre co-sponsored a one day conference at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.The conference Re-Imagining Touchstones: The Wilson Report Ten Years on and Counting; Re-Visiting the Issues and Re-Thinking the Questions/ Repenser Les Assises de la reform: retour sur les questions soulevees une decennie et plus apres la rapport Wilson, was designed to reassess not only the status of women within the profession but also the experience of women who engage, by choice or by compulsion, with the legal system . Twenty-nine women, among them community activists, academics, practitioners, law students, women litigants, and law society benchers and staff ordered their perspectives on the context in which egalitarian change is occurring and impeded, and on the very mixed results of women's efforts to secure such change from inside and outside the legal system. Twenty-four of those conference participants are represented in this collection. Some 150 people, primarily women from an equally diverse range of constituencies, attended the conference. This book attempts to capture the range of voices and perspectives on women's engagements with law, in pursuit of equality, of those who gathered one day in Ottawa in March 2004. Running through the collection is an understanding of legal practice as more than a job; it is also a crucial location and a vehicle of the struggle for social justice. Equality proponents and activists within the profession approach practice as a calling, and embrace an understanding of lawyering as a public service, an enabling profession. Feminist activists working outside of the profession call upon women lawyers for feminist practices, accountability and power-sharing to empower individual women and frontline women's groups in our common project of securing substantive equality for all women. Hence this book's title, Calling for Change: Women, Law and the Legal Profession.Some of this book's chapters offer the immediacy of the author's original delivery; other chapters are conventional scholarly works that were presented in highly abbreviated form at the conference. Some have the familiar streamlined character of an executive summary or legal memo; others risk painful and critical reflections on the experience of the conference as an instance of growing inequalities among women in relation to law and in society. We have made no attempt to render the texts uniform, preferring to allow the diversity of these texts to underline the diversity of women engaging law and the range of their experiences when doing so.We cannot claim, however, that either the conference or this text is fully representative of the diversity of women engaging the legal system. Ultimately, conference organizers bear responsibility for the voices and issues that were not heard at the event or expressed in this collection. Our efforts to focus the conference beyond the equality struggles and successes of privileged professional women and our active recruiting of non-lawyers, of racialized, Aboriginal, lesbian, disabled, and working-class women revealed that legal activists in and outside the profession and members of under-represented groups within the profession, many of whom are young mothers, remain thin on the ground ten years after Touchstones. They are also overextended precisely because the achievement of diversity in initiatives like this conference increases the already unacceptable emotional, social, familial, and professional burdens on such individuals. We are grateful to those who chose to fit contributing to this conference and this book into their crowded schedules.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.014
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207