MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466900243 · doi:10.1057/9781137562357_3

Are Women Peers?

2016· book-chapter· en· W2466900243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelynne A. Scutt

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnocenceJuryLawPolitical scienceCriminologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under Magna Carta, freemen were judged by peers. As Scutt observes, women tried, convicted and hanged by all-male juries and judges, prosecuted by men and represented by male defence counsel lacked jury rights. Women were condemned as witches because Hale said witches existed in law and the Bible. As ‘non-persons’, women could not be jurors, judges, prosecutors or defence counsel. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton asserted women’s jury rights. Canadian, US, UK, Aotearoal New Zealand and Australian women campaigned for jury rights equal to men. Defence counsel said women favoured accused in rape cases, then claimed women favoured rape victims/survivors. Only in the late 20th century were women acknowledged as peers’, to sit, like men, on juries deciding guilt or innocence — of women and men alike.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.009

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207