Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Not Compelling, 26 LEGAL TIMES 59 (June 30, 2003) ("By endorsing the diversity rationale, but making each college or university's plan subject to fact-specific inquiry, the Court has essentially created a full employment plan for lawyers.");Steven Lubet, Editorial, Affirmative Action Battle Has Just Begun, BALT.SUN 15A (June 25, 2003) ("The court's ruling contains a virtual road map for years of continuing litigation in which many affirmative action programs are very likely to lose.");Derrick Bell, Diversity's Distractions, 103 COLUM.L. REV.1622, 1628 (2003) (the Court's opinions "will likely encourage affirmative action opponents to mount more litigation challenges as well as exert pressure for the appointment of judges opposed to affirmative action in any form"); cf.Stuart Taylor, Jr., Getting Serious About Race: The Next 25 Years, 35 NAT'L J. 2085 (2003) (describing the majority opinion in Grutter as "a sorry muddle of 'utter logical confusion"').5 See, e.g., Marcia Coyle, The Fallout Begins: In Its Final Week of the Term, the Supreme Court Hands Down Landmark Rulings that Give Legal Backing to Two Kinds of Diversity, 25 NAT'L L.J. 1, 25 (July 7, 2003) ("'It's a total defeat,' said U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, who has written and spoken against race preferences for 25 years.");Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court Narrowly Upholds Affirmative Action, CHI.TRIB.Cl (June 24, 2003) ("'This is a tremendous victory for the University of Michigan, for all of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and individuals who supported us,' said university President Mary Sue Coleman.");Gail Heriot, Commentary, Supreme Court Decision Upholds Principle of Racial Preferences, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB.GI (June 29, 2003) ("Grutter is a huge loss for those who favor race neutrality.");Tony Mauro, Court Affirms Continued Need for Preferences, 229 N.Y.L.J. 1 (June 24, 2003) (observing that "[t]he U.S. Supreme Court yesterday gave a surprising and historic embrace to the concept of affirmative action in university admissions").6 The amendment has been the subject of a wealth of academic commentary.See, e.g.,
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".