Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of the United States is no stranger to controversy. Its history is full of cases that have plunged the court into moral and social dilemmas of the most heated kind. As such, the justices have waded into or been thrust into deciding matters where others have feared (or been wise not) to tread. Unsurprisingly, some of its decisions have served to fan the flames of discord rather than douse them. Yet the US Supreme Court, like other highest courts of common law countries, has retained popular respect because it has managed to take a Goldilocks-style approach – not too far ahead of public opinion and not too far behind. While it might not always have been ‘just right’ in its decisions and opinions, it has succeeded in spotting and riding the incoming tide of social change in contentious matters, like school desegregation and gay rights. However, one area of controversy that refuses to resolve itself or go away is abortion. It remains one of the most hotly contested areas on the social, moral, political and constitutional agenda. Despite the Supreme Court's 1973 decision to establish and protect a right for women to obtain an abortion, the debate around the existence and extent of such a right remains more embittered then ever. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (and its legal repercussions) has become something of a lightning rod for supporters and opponents of a woman's right to choose. Whereas some harangue the decision for providing any constitutional protection for women's right to terminate a pregnancy, others criticise it for its failure to provide a compelling and solid basis for securing that right. All in all, the Roe decision has succeeded in satisfying few and alienating many. In spite of or perhaps because of its notoriety, Roe v. Wade is accepted as one of the common law's greatest cases.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".