Methods, Impact, and Reach of the Global Feminist Judgments Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: This collection of essays is the product of the workshop Feminist Judgments: Comparative Socio-Legal Perspectives on Judicial Decision Making and Gender Justice held at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law (Onati, Spain) in May, 2017. The papers explain and explore the multiple global projects that attempt to rewrite judicial opinions by incorporating feminist legal reasoning or methods. Each essay grows out of the authors’ experiences working with projects based in a particular socio-political, geographical, historical and jurisprudential context: Canada, England, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and a multi-jurisdictional international law project. Collectively, the essays bring new insights, methods and challenges to the study of the feminist project of equal justice across the boundaries of culture, race, nation and gender. Spanish Abstract: Esta coleccion de articulos es producto del seminario Feminist Judgments: Comparative Socio-Legal Perspectives on Judicial Decision Making and Gender Justice, que tuvo lugar en el Instituto Internacional de Sociologia Juridica (Onati, Espana), en mayo de 2017. Los articulos explican y exploran los multiples proyectos globales que intentan reescribir opiniones judiciales incorporando razonamientos o metodos juridicos feministas. Cada articulo proviene de las experiencias de las autoras en su trabajo con proyectos basados en un contexto sociopolitico, geografico, historico y jurisprudencial concreto: Canada, Inglaterra, Australia, Irlanda, Nueva Zelanda, Escocia y un proyecto juridico internacional multijurisdiccional. En conjunto, los articulos aportan nuevos enfoques, metodos y desafios al estudio del proyecto feminista de justicia igualitaria, mas alla de los limites de culturas, razas, paises y generos.
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 | 0.073 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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.
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".