MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564531687 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v26i1.4536

The Scales of Injustice

2008· article· en· W1564531687 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Charles Blattberg

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLegal and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaw and economicsConsequentialismInjusticeArgument (complex analysis)Retributive justiceEconomic JusticePluralism (philosophy)LawPolitical scienceSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper criticises four major approaches to criminal law – consequentialism, retributivism, abolitionism, and “mixed” pluralism – each of which, in its own fashion, affirms the celebrated emblem of the “scales of justice.” The argument is that there is a better way of dealing with the tensions that often arise between the various legal purposes than by merely balancing them against each other. It consists, essentially, of striving to genuinely reconcile those purposes, a goal which is shown to require taking a new, “patriotic” approach to law.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicLegal and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207