Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging in the 1960’s, the clinical legal education movement promoted an important dual mission – the training of law students in practical client advocacy and the service of under and un-served communities. These laudable goals spawned a movement of great significance for legal education. At its peak the clinical movement can point to hundreds of clinics in law schools across the world, specially appointed clinical faculty, a law review and the development of a voluminous literature on clinical teaching methodology. However in the last 10 years student interest, funding and scholarly attention to the legal clinics has faded. This article argues that this is in part due to the mission and ideology of the law school clinics remaining “stuck” in a conception of social justice lawyering that is heavily dependent on rights-based strategies and traditional, hierarchical conceptions of the lawyer/client relationship. While reflecting the same stasis that affects the wider law school curriculum, this disconnect from the needs of contemporary clients as well as an increasingly pluralist model of legal services has unique implications for the legal clinics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".