MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of the Feminist Judgment Writing Projects

2018· article· en· W2907265697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Koshan

Bibliographic record

VenueOñati Socio-legal Series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalLawPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first feminist judgment writing project, the Women's Court of Canada (WCC), published its initial set of judgments ten years ago in 2008. Although the WCC has led to feminist judgment projects in several other jurisdictions, research shows that the WCC judgments have not been cited very extensively by other academics, let alone by courts, tribunals or lawyers. This article explores whether this lack of citations is cause for concern, raises some possible explanations, and discusses strategies for giving feminist judgment projects broader and deeper impact.

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)0.165
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.401
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1650.401
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0310.018
Scholarly communication0.0300.011
Open science0.0050.026
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOñati Socio-legal SeriesSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207