(Un)Necessary Evils?: Ethical And Emotional Conflicts For Social Change Lawyers In Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis concerns an exploratory study about “social change” lawyers in Canada. Based on qualitative interviews, I aim to provide a modest but in-depth examination of the experiences and practical challenges these lawyers face in their work and how they navigate them. I find their approaches are divided between external and internal, both of which are affected by lawyers’ positionalities and experiences. “External approaches” concern how they reconcile conflicts in their values and responsibilities to different groups—namely individuals, communities and social movements—with each other, and with their obligations to the legal profession. Meanwhile, “internal approaches” concern how they navigate conflicting feelings arising out of working in contradictory and oppressive external systems. Ultimately, there is no formula or answer to how this work can be done; both approaches rely on finding a balance between conflicting parties or feelings and accepting an inherent uncertainty and unresolved nature of the work.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.103 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".