MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131400723 · doi:10.1017/s1472669610000393

Teaching Legal Research in Canadian Law Schools: Are We Meeting the Needs of the Profession?

2010· article· en· W2131400723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Information Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumRelation (database)Legal researchLegal educationLawProcess (computing)Political scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this philosophical article John Eaton from the University of Manitoba recounts the current legal education system in Canada and reflects on the issues involved in teaching legal research skills, including problems with where to base the training within the curriculum, and difficulties encountered in the migration from hard copy research, to current students' predilections for using electronic sources. Whilst based on the Canadian process his article has a wider application in relation to the “Google-generation” of students.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0780.061
Scholarly communication0.0380.017
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.418
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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegal Information ManagementSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207