MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184413695 · doi:10.1111/capa.12410

Administrative tribunals and equity: Military sexual assault survivors at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board

2021· article· en· W3184413695 on OpenAlexafffund
Maya Eichler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAppealScrutinyEquity (law)Sexual assaultPolitical scienceCriminologyEconomic JusticeWork (physics)Military justicePsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlLawMedicineMedical emergencyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) decisions on military sexual assault related claims for disability entitlements since fiscal year 2009‐2010. These decisions have had significantly lower favourability rates than the average, despite recent improvements. As the case of VRAB shows, administrative tribunals may not be well equipped to ensure equitable outcomes for all users, calling into question their effectiveness as instruments of justice. Equity needs to become an explicit objective in the work of administrative tribunals, while external scrutiny may be necessary to ensure it is achieved.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207