Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0241381, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33104748

RESUMO

In the United States, the public has a constitutional right to access criminal trial proceedings. In practice, it can be difficult or impossible for the public to exercise this right. We present JUSTFAIR: Judicial System Transparency through Federal Archive Inferred Records, a database of criminal sentencing decisions made in federal district courts. We have compiled this data set from public sources including the United States Sentencing Commission, the Federal Judicial Center, the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, and Wikipedia. With nearly 600,000 records from the years 2001-2018, JUSTFAIR is the first large scale, free, public database that links information about defendants and their demographic characteristics with information about their federal crimes, their sentences, and, crucially, the identity of the sentencing judge.

2.
PLoS One ; 15(4): e0232075, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32343722

RESUMO

In its December 2019 edition, the Notices of the American Mathematical Society published an essay critical of the use of diversity statements in academic hiring. The publication of this essay prompted many responses, including three public letters circulated within the mathematical sciences community. Each letter was signed by hundreds of people and was published online, also by the American Mathematical Society. We report on a study of the signatories' demographics, which we infer using a crowdsourcing approach. Letter A highlights diversity and social justice. The pool of signatories contains relatively more individuals inferred to be women and/or members of underrepresented ethnic groups. Moreover, this pool is diverse with respect to the levels of professional security and types of academic institutions represented. Letter B does not comment on diversity, but rather, asks for discussion and debate. This letter was signed by a strong majority of individuals inferred to be white men in professionally secure positions at highly research intensive universities. Letter C speaks out specifically against diversity statements, calling them "a mistake," and claiming that their usage during early stages of faculty hiring "diminishes mathematical achievement." Individuals who signed both Letters B and C, that is, signatories who both privilege debate and oppose diversity statements, are overwhelmingly inferred to be tenured white men at highly research intensive universities. Our empirical results are consistent with theories of power drawn from the social sciences.


Assuntos
Grupos Minoritários/estatística & dados numéricos , Seleção de Pessoal/ética , Sociedades Científicas/organização & administração , Logro , Crowdsourcing , Diversidade Cultural , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Matemática , Seleção de Pessoal/legislação & jurisprudência , Justiça Social , Sociedades Científicas/ética , Estados Unidos , Universidades
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA