MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

9. Law as a Woman’s Enterprise

2016· book-chapter· en· W2502981290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jill Norgren

Bibliographic record

VenueNew York University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingPatriarchyPrejudice (legal term)Order (exchange)LawQuarter (Canadian coin)MonopolyIndustrial RevolutionPeriod (music)Political scienceSociologyGender studiesHistoryArtPhilosophyEconomicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter builds upon the biographies in preceding chapters, interweaving the stories of the eight women with those of other female attorneys of the period. From this wider perspective, it appraises law as a woman's enterprise in the late nineteenth century. It argues that the entrance of women into legal profession was nothing short of a revolution. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, these women succeeded in breaking into one of America's most influential professions that was, at the time, controlled by men. In order to end this male monopoly, these women challenged patriarchy, law, arrogance, prejudice, and the fear of change. They succeeded in what their opponent, Judge Edward Ryan, called “a sweeping revolution of social order.”

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueNew York University Press eBooksSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207