MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W345341298

Planning and Conduct of the National Conference

2006· article· en· W345341298 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur J. England

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and Process · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesYork University
Mots-clésLawSupreme courtEconomic JusticePolitical scienceState (computer science)Sociology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

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)0,066
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,068
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: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0660,068
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0080,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,003
Communication savante0,0150,007
Science ouverte0,0060,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,015
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1240,041

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 Opus0,090
Tête enseignante GPT0,435
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · 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
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and ProcessMême sujetLegal Education and Practice InnovationsTravaux en français237 207