MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W159820614 · doi:10.29173/alr39

The Great Disconnect: Reconnecting the Academy to the Profession

2014· article· en· W159820614 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Douglas Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumLegal educationLegal professionLawFoundation (evidence)Political scienceSociologyBridge (graph theory)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines what the author calls “the great disconnect” between law schools and the profession. After a discussion of the purpose of law school and the current status of the academy and articling, the article traces the history of the relationship between law faculties and the profession over the past century. This relationship has, for the past 50 years, resulted in little connection between the academy and the profession. Recent efforts by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to regulate curriculum have now made the relationship more important than ever.The author looks at the effect the great disconnect has had on Canadian law schools and makes a number of recommendations on their future relationship with the profession, including institutional links with law societies and the Canadian Bar Association. Curriculum reform can also help bridge the great disconnect by implementing an integrated approach to legal education proposed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, an approach that is being implemented in many law schools across the United States.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.048
Scholarly communication0.0170.017
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207