MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039814737 · doi:10.1177/1037969x20938203

Justice Carolyn Simpson and women’s changing place in the legal profession: ‘Yes, you can!’

2020· article· en· W3039814737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kcasey McLoughlin, Hannah Stenstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternative Law Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeQuarter (Canadian coin)Supreme courtLawLegal professionProject commissioningSociologyPolitical sciencePublishingHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Justice Carolyn Simpson had a judicial career spanning a quarter of a century – the longest serving of any of the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ women judges. In this article, we critically examine both the image projected at Justice Simpson’s elevation to the Court in 1994 and the legacy crafted about her upon her retirement. As we move forward into a new century of Australian women in law, these speeches reveal much about women’s changing place within the legal profession, but also demonstrate disappointing continuity in terms of the obstacles faced by women.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0360.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternative Law JournalSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207