Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the legal profession in Canada and elsewhere is one of the exclusion of women, Aboriginals, ethnic and racial minorities, and those from less privileged classes. Based on face-to-face interviews with 50 women and 50 men called to the Bar in British Columbia during the past 3-7 years, Joan Brockman has studied this phenomenon and tried to determine reasons why such exclusion has been practised and what its effects have been, particularly with respect to women. Although legal barriers that historically prevented women from entering the legal profession have been removed, informal and structural barriers that impede women's full participation within the profession remain. Much of the discrimination still experienced stems from expectations that women, in particular, will assume primary responsibilities for child care, elder care, emotional stability in the home, household management, and other domestic matters. In addition, some women still experience sexual harassment and discrimination even if they have managed to reduce or avoid additional domestic responsibilities. There have, to be sure, been changes and accommodations made for women in the legal workforce, and men as well as women have helped to make them. But, Brockman concludes, until there is significant change in how women are perceived in relation to domestic duties, it is unlikely that they will attain equality within the legal profession. The profession will only change when perceptions of the family change, at which point women will not only fit the mould at work, but men also will fit the mould at home.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".