MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993751475 · doi:10.1353/tlj.2010.0012

If Philosophical Legal Ethics is the Answer, What is the Question?

2010· article· en· W1993751475 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alice Woolley

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPhilosophyClosed-ended questionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Philosophical legal ethics, a sub-discipline of legal ethics arguably initiated by Charles Fried and Richard Wasserstrom, follows a consistent methodological structure: first, what is the ‘standard conception’ of the lawyer's role? second, what is the relationship between the standard conception – the conception of the lawyer as a partisan advocate for her client, neutral about (and unaccountable for) the morality of her client's aims – and the claims of morality more generally? and third, given that relationship, can what lawyers do be morally justified? or should what lawyers do be changed? The concerns of philosophical legal ethics are not primarily doctrinal; they analyse the lawyer's role with some generality and are fundamentally rooted in philosophy, moral or political.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207