MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512364812 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v32i2.4678

AN INTRODUCTION TO EXPLORING LAW, DISABILITY, AND THE CHALLENGE OF EQUALITY IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: PAPERS FROM THE BERKELEY SYMPOSIUM

2015· article· en· W2512364812 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laverne Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It brings me great pleasure to write this Introduction to Exploring Law, Disability, and the Challenge of Equality in Canada and the United States. This special collection of articles in the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice [WYAJ] stems from a symposium of the same name held at the Berkeley Law School at the University of California on 5 December 2014. Writing this introduction allows me to bring together my identities as a law and disability scholar, the principal organizer and convener of the Berkeley Symposium, and editor-in-chief of the WYAJ.In these roles, I have had the opportunity to engage with this set of articles and their authors in a distinct way – from the early versions of these articles through to the final peer-reviewed publications. The Berkeley Symposium is the first conference, of which we are aware, to bring together scholars and experts from both Canada and the United States to present research and exchange ideas on equality issues affecting persons with disabilities in both countries.1 Each academic was invited to write about an equality issue of their choice that is of contemporary concern to persons with disabilities, and to focus on Canada, the United States,or both, at their option. The result is a set of articles that is simultaneously introspective and comparative.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.330
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207