MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W942731639

Why Does It Matter If Women Are Human: Catharine MacKinnon's Contributions to International Law

2010· article· en· W942731639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karima Bennoune

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is an honor for me to take part in this event and I thank the organizers for inviting me.Catharine MacKinnon is one of the law professors I admire most and I am proud to be among the legion of former students who have learned so much from her.She convinces me by example that there is no reason one cannot be an advocate and an academic at the same time, however frowned upon that may be by some of our colleagues.That theory matters not for its own sake but in the lives of real women and men.I That it is possible to be both erudite and relevant at the same time.She also forces me, in the healthiest way, to question every basic assumption that I make about what I do as a professor of international law and human rights by asking profound and destabilizing questions like, "are women human?"Before I describe what I see as the far-reaching ramifications for international law of asking such a seemingly simple question, I should perhaps start by explaining how I first met Professor MacKinnon.Being an Arab American international lawyer in these times means that much of my career has been shaped by polarizing events.My first year of law school at the University of Michigan, back in academic year 1990-91, witnessed the birth of the fleeting New World Order proclaimed by President George H.W. Bush.Hence, I spent much of my first year at demonstrations, teach-ins, and endless meetings as a student activist in the anti-war movement during the (depending on how you count it) first Gulf War.As a result of this work, I appeared twice on the MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour to discuss opposition to the conflict among students and Arab Americans.Shortly thereafter, I began to receive a stream of bizarre, pornographic letters from a gentleman in Canada who was good enough to put his name and return address on each.These communiqu6s featured strange, explicit Orientalist fantasies, often involving veils and harems.They made me queasy, especially in the prevailing climate of heightened anti-Arab racism.They just kept arriving, appearing several times a week in my pendaflex in the law school basement.I went to the Ann Arbor police.I went to the federal postal inspector.I went

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.024
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0100.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207