Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though McColgan's book promises much, it fails to persuade the reader for several reasons. First, a number of the examples used to demonstrate the inferiority of entrenched rights actually suggest the opposite. The second reason why McColgan fails to persuade results from her forcing constitutional arguments where there are none. The third problem with this book is its failure to extrapolate its arguments about women to other disadvantaged groups. Despite these shortcomings, there is much in McColgan's book to recommend it. Her prose is fluid, her presentation of US and Canadian law, particularly regarding abortion, is extensive, and her arguments are clearly made. In fact, the author's ability to introduce such a large amount of information may work against her, for it gives the impression that she is cataloguing the laws in the various jurisdictions rather than comparing them. Indeed, the absence of a more rigorous comparative analysis of the two approaches leaves one with the sense that the most important work has yet to be done. Had the author been able to deliver what was promised, this book would have posed a powerful challenge to notions of human rights and constitutional protections as traditionally conceived.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.017 |
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".