MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2020771747 · doi:10.1353/tlj.0.0002

Law and Film: Where are the Mediators?

2008· article· en· W2020771747 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer L. Schulz

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLaw in Society and Culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPopular cultureLegal cultureStatuteLawSociologyLegal educationFair useClass (philosophy)Legal professionPolitical scienceMedia studiesEpistemologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Law and Film: Where are the Mediators?† Jennifer L. Schulz* Michael Asimow and Shannon Mader have written the first text for a course in law and popular culture. In Law and Popular Culture: A Course Book they argue that ‘[m]ost people learn most of what they think they know about law and lawyers from consuming popular legal culture’ (7) and that ‘popular culture both constructs our perceptions of the law and changes the way that the players in the legal system behave’ (xxii [emphasis in original]). If we accept Asimow and Mader’s assertion about the power of popular culture, and I do, their achievement in creating this first text is to be commended.1 The text embraces law, film, and television and is intended to be used as the reader for a course in law and popular culture. Each chapter is based on a particular film (a few are based on television programs) that students are to watch before coming to class. The authors use the films profiled in the book as cultural legal texts, a laudable approach because it treats films as texts as worthy of study as the cases and statutes normally studied in law classes. Asimow and Mader’s textual organization is also to be praised. They focus on one film per chapter, and each chapter provides both cinematic background on the film and legal background relevant to the law depicted in the movie. At the end of each chapter they pose review questions, and the result is clear, easy-to-follow, interesting reading. Asimow and Mader’s course book is designed for both law students and other undergraduate university students. This intended dual audience makes the book less useful for law professors, however, as much of it is too simplistic for law students.2 Most law students have completed [End Page 233] undergraduate degrees (at a minimum) before beginning their legal studies, and most do not take courses on law and film or law and popular culture until they are in the second or third year of their degree programs. At this point in their legal education, they are ready for more in-depth, theoretical analysis than this text provides. Asimow and Mader argue, however, that providing extensive treatment of theoretical materials would have made their book ‘much longer and probably much less useful for most of its readers’ (6). Instead, they encourage professors to infuse classes with theory by adding supplementary reading materials, which would be necessary in order to make the course sufficiently rigorous for law school standards. Their assertion that their book ‘can be taught by anyone who enjoys popular culture and is interested in law’ (xxiii) simply does not inspire confidence as to its depth when used without supplementary theoretical readings. Although Asimow and Mader provide little theoretical information, they do assist the student cinematically; where their text shines is in its emphasis on filmic techniques.3 Unlike most law and film scholars, these authors do an excellent job of supporting their discussion with insightful cinematic commentary and film theory.4 They connect cinematic techniques to legal films to flesh out their arguments about the American criminal and civil justice systems. This is exceptional, and must come as a result of Mader’s co-authorship, given that he is not only a lawyer but also has a doctorate in film studies. There are, however, at least two areas in which the book could be improved. In their next edition, the authors should reconsider some of their analyses in light of feminist theory and conflict resolution theory. Their text would benefit from a more well-rounded picture of law, and this picture must include women and mediators. [End Page 234] Asimow and Mader correctly note that films about female lawyers are often concerned less with their work than with how they might find a man and become fulfilled (188). While recognizing that women lawyers in film are portrayed more negatively than male lawyers, are more often lacking in ethics and professionalism, and have fewer opportunities to emerge as heroes,5 they unfortunately perpetuate these portrayals in their book. For example, the first film Asimow and Mader analyse is Anatomy of a...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,096

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,010
Communication savante0,0180,030
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0290,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,202 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalMême sujetLaw in Society and CultureTravaux en français237 207