MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597300592 · doi:10.21991/c9bd53

An Argument Against Accreditation of Trinity Western University's Proposed Law School

2014· article· en· W1597300592 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dianne Pothier

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaAccreditationConsolidation (business)LawArgument (complex analysis)Political scienceManagementLibrary scienceSociologyMedicineAccountingComputer scienceEthnologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TO: J. René Gallant, President, Nova Scotia Barristers’SocietyFROM: Dianne PothierRE: Trinity Western University’s proposed LawSchoolDATE: Consolidation of written submissionsto the NSBS Executive Committee made January18, 2014, oral submissions made February13, 2014, and written submissions made March5, 2014 in response to TWU President’s Kuhn’spresentation on March 4, 2014

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.018
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0430.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207