MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572617883 · doi:10.29173/alr2671

Lawyers as Quasi-Public Actors

2021· article· en· W1572617883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. Bradley Wendel

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsPublic administrationPublic relationsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American lawyers are often conceived of as agents of the client (mere hired guns or mouthpieces for their client) who can select specific categories of clients at their discretion. However, the law governing lawyers as a whole is not purely private in nature as it does place some public duties on lawyers. An example of this is the rule in the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct that imposes a duty on lawyers to provide pro bono legal services to those who need it. Although this duty is not enforceable through the disciplinary process, this responsibility will nevertheless continue to fall on individual lawyers due to the political realities in the United States. The author provides a justification for this unenforceable requirement by conceptualizing lawyers as quasi-public officials, thereby imbuing the lawyer’s role with responsibilities to both the client and to the legal system. Rather than being soley private actors, lawyers have a duty to act in the interests of justice, thereby ensuring “access to justice.”

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207