MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893170026

The Worrisome State of Legal Literacy among Teachers and Administrators

2009· article· en· W1893170026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)LiteracyMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, societies are becoming more litigious. As one consequence, educators are developing an increased sensitivity to the legal context that shapes their professional work. While this trend is being led by the United States, its effects are felt in Canada and elsewhere. Accordingly, there has been an observed increase in the fear of litigation amongst educators, which, in turn, impacts their educational practices. This paper argues, however, that this fear is borne more of a lack of legal knowledge amongst educators than it is of the actual prospects of being involved in a lawsuit. It also suggests possible means by which this lack can be overcome which would also serve as a corrective to educators’ misplaced fears.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.452 · 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