MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378171960 · doi:10.1017/jme.2023.40

Gender and Stand Your Ground Laws: A Critical Appraisal of Existing Research

2023· article· en· W4378171960 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Light, Janae Thomas, Alexa R. Yakubovich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawGender discriminationPolitical scienceEconomicsDemographic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the existing research on Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws in terms of the extent to which it has accounted for gender. In particular, we address (a) what the available evidence suggests are the gender-based impacts of SYG laws and (b) where, how, and why considerations of gender may be missing in available studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.280
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.542
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2800.542
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0240.014
Science and technology studies0.0080.031
Scholarly communication0.0160.026
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.043 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Law Medicine & EthicsSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207