Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, Lisa Kerr provides a case study of the dynamic Sharon Dolovich identifies: U.S. courts’ failure to extend maternal rights into the prison context. Focusing on the interest incarcerated mothers have in retaining custody of their newborn infants, the chapter illustrates how courts drain the content of mothers’ constitutional rights in response to the most minimal justifications advanced by prisons and state officials. Canadian courts have largely adopted the same deferential approach to prison officials as have American courts. But one recent Canadian case—<italic>Inglis v. British Columbia</italic>—sharply diverged from this tradition. Not only did the judge in <italic>Inglis</italic> rule on the side of the prisoners, but her reasoning departed significantly, even radically, from what one typically sees in judicial rulings on prisoners’ constitutional claims, even while resting on wholly recognizable and noncontroversial legal principles. In this way, Kerr argues, <italic>Inglis</italic> potentially offers a new model for judicial review of prisoners’ constitutional claims.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".