Planning and Conduct of the National Conference
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND In 1975, appellate judges, lawyers, and scholars held a national conference on appellate justice. To mark its thirty-year anniversary and to provide a forum for evaluating the changes that have taken place in the thirty-year interval, a second conference was conceived by the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Federal Judicial Center, the National Center for State Courts, and the Institute of Judicial Administration at New York University College of Law. Individuals from each of those organizations served on a thirteen-member Steering Committee that included Seventh Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, and University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor Arthur D. Hellman. (1) Professor Hellman also agreed to serve as Reporter for the Conference. Planning for the Conference took more than a year. Among the most important tasks undertaken in preparing for the Conference were the choice of participants, the selection of topics for discussion, the determination of a format, and the funding of judges and court personnel who might not be able to attend without outside financial assistance. The Steering Committee determined early in its process that the Conference would succeed only if it included representatives of all the major constituencies served by and participating in the appellate process, and that consequently the Conference would be by invitation only. The Committee extended invitations only to federal and state appellate judges, appellate attorneys, law professors, and appellate court staff personnel who were recognized for their expertise in, or who had significant practical experience in, either appellate jurisprudence or appellate court process, procedure, technology, or administration. The Committee received acceptances from almost all of the individuals to whom invitations were sent. Justice Stephen G. Breyer addressed the Conference, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was its guest at the opening reception. PLANNING AND STRUCTURE The Conference centered around small breakout sessions that followed substantive speeches and panel presentations on pre-selected topics. Professor Hellman took the lead in suggesting topics for discussion at the Conference. The Steering Committee then had extensive discussions to refine the topics, to choose and contact proposed speakers on the subjects selected, to prescribe the time frames for the speakers and panel presentations, and to select materials relevant to the topics that would be sent to conferees as the required advance reading. The breakout groups, each composed of twelve to fifteen conferees, were asked to discuss their experiences and ideas relating to the specific topic addressed in the immediately preceding plenary session. Each breakout group was a cross-section of federal judges, state judges, appellate attorneys, and state court personnel, and each group was diversified by geography and levels of judicial body represented. Each breakout group was assigned a discussion leader to keep the group focused on the subjects being considered, and a law professor who served as its reporter. Each group discussion was audio recorded, with the understanding that the tape would be held by the group's reporter to assist in reporting the group's discussion to Professor Hellman in his capacity as Conference Reporter. The audio tapes were then destroyed. Funding for the Conference was an early concern of the Committee. A reasonable registration fee was set to cover hotel charges for rooms and meals, and the costs of administrative services such as the reproduction and mailing of Conference materials. (2) The Federal Judicial Center agreed to pay the registration fees and travel costs of federal judge conferees. To fund state court personnel who might be unable to attend without financial assistance, three Fellows of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers created a non-profit foundation to raise the necessary money, and then to accept grant applications from conferees needing financial assistance. …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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