MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074135593 · doi:10.1017/s1472669614000395

A ‘Charity’ Case in Point

2014· article· en· W2074135593 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Information Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsLawEconomic JusticeSociologyPoint (geometry)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article is written by Rebecca Herle who is the Head of Sales and Marketing at the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales (ICLR). Her article draws on material delivered by two of her colleagues at the ICLR, namely Daniel Hoadley's recent plenary session at the BIALL Conference 2014 called, ‘The Curious Case of the Judgment Enhancers’ and Paul Magrath's article published by Infolaw.co.uk, entitled ‘The Future of Law Reporting’. It also refers in part to Lord Neuberger's speech for the first annual BAILII Lecture (in 2012) entitled ‘No Judgment – No Justice’, and reflects upon the position of the ICLR in the legal profession today. From the birth of the ICLR in 1865 to the present day the article provides a brief history, and then explores the current day issues, of this charitable publisher in its surrounding legal environment. She also offers a glimpse into what the future might hold.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · 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