Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the ten years since this book first came out, much has changed and much has stayed the same. Increasingly sophisticated legal tools have emerged for addressing inequality; yet true equality remains elusive. Indeed, by paying more attention to inequalities, we are more aware of their scale. On the one hand, the legal landscape in the UK has been altered dramatically by the Equality Act 2010, which draws together the confusing plethora of anti-discrimination legislation which had grown piece-meal over the years. On the other hand, the social landscape is being ravaged by cuts to public services, making gains in the equality field appear increasingly fragile. Simultaneously, the legitimacy of human rights is being challenged in some political quarters. As in the first edition, this book aims to contribute to the search for equality, not by providing answers, but by articulating the questions. The second edition deepens and extends the use of comparative law, drawing particularly on equality law in the USA, Canada, South Africa, and India. European Union law is also of central importance, as is that of the European Convention on Human Rights. Similar questions are asked across all these jurisdictions, and there is increasing cross-pollination of legal concepts. Comparative law sharpens our understanding of our own jurisdiction, enriches the debate as to the purposes of equality law, and suggests alternative means of accomplishing stated aims. At the same time, comparative law carries with it important challenges: equality must always be understood within the specific legal, social, and political context of a particular jurisdiction. The aim is therefore to find a conception of equality which is both generalizable and context sensitive.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.479 | 0.341 |
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".