MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W227303418

Introducing the Women's Court of Canada

2006· article· en· W227303418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana Majury

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPoliticsDowntownPovertyPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyLawHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8:00 PM, 27 February 2004—the end of a long day. Ten feminist equality/ Charter activists, lawyers, and academics are sitting around a long table eating pasta and drinking red wine in an Italian restaurant in downtown Toronto. We have spent the day together talking about section 15 of the Charter—recent cases, recent losses. We have been pushing ourselves and our thinking, strengthening and developing our equality analysis, trying to respond to the challenges of intersectionality and of ‘‘competing rights.’’ We have been strategizing about how to move forward with our ideas. Over the course of the day, we have had moments of exhilaration, moments of intense debate and discussion, and some break-through eureka moments. It has been an exciting, productive day full of possibilities. Yet despite all of these positives, the day has been overshadowed by an overriding sense of gloom brought on by what we all see as grievous judicial backsliding on equality. At the end of the day, we are pretty subdued. We are feeling disheartened, angry, frustrated. Women’s equality is painfully far from being a reality—too many women live in poverty, unable to feed and house themselves and their children adequately; lesbians are merely tolerated, mostly regarded as a deviant lifestyle, sometimes targeted for hate and violence; women with disabilities are still denied basic access to transportation, employment, and autonomy; racialized women are stigmatized and marginalized, and, in the post 9/11 political climate, some are perceived as potential terrorists; Aboriginal women are disappearing—raped, murdered, and discarded. The issues are urgent; there is much equality work to be done. But, politicians and Supreme Court of Canada judges alike seem to think that women have largely attained equality and that other issues (balanced budgets and national security) should take priority over equality. We are losing equality ground; we are in danger of losing our equality footing. Equality has experienced some terrible setbacks in recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The impact has been devastating, not only for the

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0680.015
Scholarly communication0.0190.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207