MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W205064354

Book Review: OSCOLA: The Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, 4th ed, by Donal Nolan and Sandra Meredith, eds, Oxford: Hart, 2012, 60 Pages

2013· article· en· W205064354 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Kleefeld

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationHegemonyStyle (visual arts)Political scienceLaw and economicsLawArtSociologyLiterature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the 4th edition of OSCOLA, the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities, suggesting that it poses a four-pronged challenge to other contenders in the world of legal citation. The first aims at the hegemony of uniformity. The second, at a tendency to what Posner has declaimed as hypertrophy in the size of legal citation manuals. The third, at barriers to accessing such manuals. And the fourth prong, gentler and more tentative than the others, aims at the notion that footnoting and referencing legal materials is purely a question of function, with little role for beauty, elegance, or style.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207