MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266894477

Transnational Legal Practice (International)

2013· article· en· W2266894477 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurel S. Terry

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article covers three years of Transnational Legal Practice developments outside of the US. (It is the companion piece to 47 Int'l Law. 499 (2013) which discusses US developments.) This article discusses the approval of an Alternative Business Structure licensing system by the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority and its subsequent issuance of ABS licenses. The second section reviews the emergence of the “Troika” as a new regulatory influence in Europe, citing as an example the joint ABA-CCBE letter to the IMF. (The Troika refers to the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission.) The third section of the article reviews global developments that involve liberalization or contraction in market access for foreign lawyers, highlighting developments in Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, Brazil and India. The next section provides information about the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Legal Services Inventory, which is a new web-based resource. It also discusses the September 2012 first-ever International Conference of Legal Regulators. The final section of the article highlights selected transnational legal practice developments around the globe, including developments in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the EU, including developments related the application of anti-money laundering rules to the legal profession

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.006

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207