Impact of the Feminist Judgment Writing Projects: The Case of the Women’s Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. El primer proyecto feminista de redacción de sentencias, el Tribunal de Mujeres de Canadá (WCC son sus siglas en inglés), publicó su primer conjunto de sentencias hace diez años, en 2008. Aunque el WCC ha liderado proyectos de tribunales feministas en otras jurisdicciones, la investigación demuestra que las sentencias del WCC no han sido frecuentemente citadas por otros académicos, mucho menos aún por tribunales y abogados. Este artículo analiza si esta ausencia de citaciones debiera preocuparnos, propone algunas posibles explicaciones y debate estrategias para dotar a los proyectos de sentencias feministas de un mayor y más profundo impacto. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3285082
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 | 0.032 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.099 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".