MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125906403

Women and Children First, but Only If the Men are Union Members: Hiring Halls and Delinquent Child-Supporters

2014· article· en· W3125906403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorraine A. Schmall

Bibliographic record

VenueNotre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceEnforcementQuarter (Canadian coin)Law enforcementCriminologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A widely-held opinion is that, in a court of law, women almost always lose – and so do labor unions. But when three disfavored groups petitioned to a judge, the male union member lost his case. Arguably women and children have suffered the most and longest legal disabilities under state law. Until mid-twentieth century, women were unable to hold or inherit property, bring lawsuits, or manage their own business affairs. Nor were they able to testify against their husbands in any trial. There were few, if any, laws against marital assault – or even rape, until the 1960’s. Their civil rights in employment, public accommodations, education and military service were not legally established until the last quarter of the 20th century. Children remain legally incompetent to enter contracts, bring suit, make family decisions, or enjoy the franchise. Only when their acts are deemed criminal are they treated the same as adults. In family law and domestic abuse cases, courts have historically favored husbands and fathers over mothers and offspring. Child-support enforcement has been traditionally law. But in a case demanding the cooperation of union pension fund managers in child support collections, a court forced to choose among three less favored parties, traditional hierarchies were altered, institutional discrimination trumped ordinary common law preferences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNotre Dame journal of law, ethics & public policySame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207