Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the meaning, purpose, and promise of reflective practice in the context of the legal profession and at this critical juncture in the profession’s history. The imperatives for enhancing the reflective capacity of the profession are explored and the benefits of endorsing reflective practice as a core professional competency are reviewed. Reporting on a portion of an action research project designed to encourage reflective practice in a Canadian law school, the author synthesizes the results of a review of reflective practice literature, largely drawn from other professions, with the results of qualitative interviews with eight professors from the law school on the importance and nature of reflective practice for students, faculty, and lawyers. Using an iterative process, their insights helped to forge an aspirational conceptualization of reflective practice specific to the legal profession. Essential components of reflective practice identified include the traditional “reflection on practice,” critical reflection, self-reflection, and integrating these forms of reflection, in addition to developing the capacity to reflect in community to add rigour, all coupled with the necessity of leading to action. An aspirational conceptualization would be an integrated reflective practitioner who is self-aware and critically reflects on practice and theory as a self-directed lifelong learner, reflects collectively and in community and takes action to improve his or her practice. Reflective practice becomes a “way of being.”
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".