Deux grandes dames: Bertha Wilson et Claire L’Heureux-Dubé à la Cour suprême du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bertha Wilson and Claire L’Heureux-Dube were the first women judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. One represented English Canada, the other Quebec. Polar opposites in background and temperament, the two faced similar challenges. Their 1980s judicial appointments delighted feminists and shocked the legal establishment. Constance Backhouse delves into the sexist roadblocks both women had to face in education, law practice, and in the courts. She explores their different ways of coping, their landmark decisions for women’s rights, and their less than stellar records on race. To explore the lives and careers of these two path-breaking women is to venture into a world of legal sexism from a past era. When L’Heureux-Dube sought to enroll at Laval law school (over her father’s vehement objection), a university official told her law was “only for men.” When Bertha Wilson entered Dalhousie Law School, the Dean suggested she “go home and take up crocheting.” Tracing their efforts to navigate a storm of sexism tells much about the roots of gender inequality from our past. The question becomes, how much of that sexism has been relegated to the bins of history, and how much continues to haunt us? Published in French.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".