Turning Feminist Judgments into Jurisprudence: The Women's Court of Canada on Substantive Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Women’s Court of Canada project is unique in having chosen to focus its rewriting efforts in a specific area of law – constitutional equality cases. This strategy permits an assessment of the WCC jurisprudence to see if it yields a competing ‘theory’ of equality rights that might be used to systematically critique the real jurisprudence and perhaps produce lines of argument capable of redirecting the real law. This effort reveals the pervasive importance of attention to and representation of context to bringing to life the abstract commitments of an account of substantive equality. While not a new discovery, this demonstration of the work context can do across an array of linked cases is illuminating. El proyecto del Tribunal de Mujeres de Canadá (WCC, por su nombre en inglés, Women’s Court of Canada) es único en el sentido de que se ha centrado en reescribir, sobre todo, sentencias de un área específica del derecho – casos de igualdad constitucional –. Esta estrategia permite una valoración de la jurisprudencia del WCC para ver si brinda una "teoría" alternativa de derechos de igualdad que se pueda usar para producir argumentaciones capaces de redirigir el derecho real. Este esfuerzo revela la importancia general de la atención al contexto, y la representación de éste, a la hora de dotar de vida los compromisos abstractos de igualdad sustantiva. Si bien no se trata de una novedad, es esclarecedora esta demostración de lo que el contexto de trabajo puede hacer en un número de casos relacionados. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3215739
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".