MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995813127 · doi:10.1080/09612025.2019.1702791

Cornelia Sorabji (1866–1954): a pioneer woman lawyer in Britain and India

2019· article· en· W2995813127 on OpenAlexaff
MaryJane Mossman

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s History Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Opposition (politics)ColonialismBritish EmpireContext (archaeology)ChoseHistoryWar of independenceLawAncient historyEmpireGender studiesSociologyPolitical sciencePoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cornelia Sorabji, born into a Parsee Christian family in Pune, was the first woman to write the BCL examinations at Oxford University in 1892. She had some initial success as a woman lawyer after she returned to India in 1893, including becoming the first woman lawyer in the British Empire to defend an accused charged with murder in 1896. In 1904, she was appointed Lady Assistant to the Court of Wards and provided advice to women Purdahnashin in northern India for nearly two decades. Yet, her ardent support for ‘British India’ eventually resulted in her opposition to Gandhi’s independence movement and, as Vera Brittain concluded, she chose ‘a wrong direction’ at a critical moment in history. Her story reveals both opportunities and constraints for women in India in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, as well as the shifting colonial relationships in British India in the context of the Independence movement of the 1930s and 40s.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s History ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207