Bibliographic record
Abstract
It seems a long time ago now that my colleague at the University of Salford, Paul Chynoweth, floated the idea that I might take forward his brainchild and, with the guidance and support of ASCE Editor Dr. Amarjit Singh, guest edit a special issue of the Legal Affairs Section of the Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice dedicated to teaching law on engineering and construction programs. Much has happened since that lunchtime proposal in spring 2007, not least that a new Journal has been developed by Dr. Singh, the Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, which is now home to this project. Moreover, I have been pleasantly surprised that the topic for the special issue has attracted so much interest that it has been necessary to publish the fruits of the call for papers in two tranches, the second being scheduled soon for release. The sheer range and geographical origin of submissions has been a revelation, and I hope that these two special issues may play a part in consolidating the wider community of construction law academics. I thank all contributors for their efforts and their patience, and Dr. Singh and the ASCE team for their support. I have deliberately opened this first issue with Matthew Bell’s avowedly nonexhaustive survey of “Construction Law Graduate Studies around the World,” Despite making no claim to being comprehensive, it nonetheless demonstrates how law relating to construction is being taken seriously at higher education institutions in the United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Singapore, and Holland. The preponderance of courses outlined are based in the United Kingdom. While the long-established course at King’s College London may have prompted other U.K. institutions to consider construction law a viable postgraduate subject area, it will be interesting to see whether debate prompted by publication of this survey in fact reveals that the breadth and depth of construction law postgraduate studies is significantly wider than Matthew’s survey suggests. I suspect it is, since some of the other papers even in these two special issues indicate postgraduate construction law being taught at institutions not included in the survey. Certainly at undergraduate level construction law is widely studied, being an integral part of the education of many different construction professionals. Emmanuel Ntumy’s reflections on his experience of “Teaching Law Courses to Non-Law Students in an Engineering Faculty” in Botswana introduces some of the issues that consideration of these two special issues as a whole may suggest are universal issues for teachers of construction law to engineering and construction students. Such issues are how to deal with primary legal resources case law and legislation with a group for whom the entire topic is alien, or how best to get such a group to grasp necessary legal principles. Emmanuel’s solution,
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".