MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252284036 · doi:10.1163/24522031-12340006

Empirical Research and Workplace Discrimination Law

2019· article· en· W4252284036 on OpenAlex
Alysia Blackham

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEmpirical researchLawPolitical scienceSociologyComparative lawLaw and economicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Empirical Research and Workplace Discrimination Law , part of the series Comparative Discrimination Law, Alysia Blackham offers a succinct comparative survey of empirical research that is occurring in workplace discrimination law, across jurisdictions such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Drawing on case studies of existing scholarship, Blackham offers both a rationale for conducting empirical research in this area, and methodological options for researchers considering empirical work. Using examples from case law and public policy, the author considers the impact that empirical research is having on discrimination law and policy, and highlights fundamental gaps in existing empirical scholarship.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.114 · 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