MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258736271

Transsystemia - Are We Approaching a New Langdellian Moment - Is McGill Leading the Way

2006· article· en· W2258736271 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Peter L. Strauss

Bibliographic record

VenuePenn State international law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsLegal educationLawLegal professionFace (sociological concept)Political scienceCommon lawJurisdictionCommercial lawLegal historySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Late in the 19th century, as our economy was transformed into a truly national one, legal education was transformed by the adoption of a teaching technique – Langdell's Socratic Method – that succeeded in creating law graduates confident of their capacity to be professionals in ANY American common law jurisdiction – national lawyers even in the absence of a national common law. Today, as the economy is once again transforming, now internationally, lawyers have an equivalent need to be confident of their capacity to perform across national boundaries. The paper briefly describes the way in which McGill University's Faculty of Law has transformed the education its students received by teaching common law and civil law systems side-by-side, transsystemically, with apparent success in meeting this need. It then discusses the special advantages McGill has in this regard, the obstacles that would face an American law school seeking to chart a similar course, and some possible means of doing so. Here, too, it suggests, change may not be strictly voluntary, but driven by what the market for law graduates increasingly demands.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePenn State international law reviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207