Bibliographic record
Abstract
FEMINIST CONSTITUTIONALISM: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES Beverley Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez, and Tsvi Kahana, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012 Aiming to rethink constitutionalism in a manner that addresses and reflects feminist thought and experience, Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives provides a comprehensive comparative examination of the complexity of constitutionalism as a viable option for feminist mobilization. Baines, Barak-Erez, and Kahana argue that the contributions--both actual and potential--feminism presents for traditional understandings of constitutionalism have largely been ignored; the impact feminist analysis has and continues to have on constitutional law, and vice versa, warrants attention. Chapters by Nedelsky, Case, and Dixon and Nussbaum address potential contributions feminist constitutionalism could make to mainstream feminist debates concerning the division of household labour, the institution of marriage, and reproductive freedom respectively. The authors outline the work of feminism in challenging the patriarchal foundations of constitution development and execution. Furthermore, they provide insight into how these debates can result in a reconceptualization of certain values initially intended by constitutional framers to further subordinate this particular population. Subsequent chapters challenge the idea that feminist contribution to constitutionalism is uni-dimensional. While the authors recognize that constitutions have historically been and continue to be developed without input, there remain opportunities for mobilization. Barak-Erez's chapter on feminist interpretation, and Roberts' chapter on judges in Australia explore the utility of a feminist interpretation of the law while accounting for the challenges judges face as they attempt to implement this interpretation within a male dominated forum. These experiences are often compounded by the limited capacity of legal mechanisms to assess gender-based equality, as demonstrated in Froc's chapter on the Charter and Loper's chapter on constitutional developments in Hong Kong. Similarly, the success of feminist constitutionalism relies on the presence of feminist legislators as well. McDonagh and Monopoli argue in their chapter on the political representation of women in the United States that the inherently masculine nature of political institutions makes it difficult for women to gain access; moreover, those who are able to gain access often experience isolation from their male colleagues or are relegated to those policy domains traditionally conceived of as female oriented. On the other hand, Rodriguez-Ruiz and Rubio-Marin contend that constitutionally imposed gender parity in state legislatures provides an ideal environment for feminist contribution. Finally, Katz examines how the success of involvement in constitution drafting is context-specific and varies by country. This should not however deter us from recognizing the unique insight women bring to this process. …
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".