Is the Blush off the Rose? Legal Education Metaphors in a Changing World
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic shifts in legal practice associated with globalization, rapid technological and economic change, and shifting client expectations have yet to spur concomitant changes in legal education. While governing bodies and scholars study trends, pressures, and shrinking markets, legal educators in many countries have resisted effective curricular, pedagogical, and programmatic changes. Positing metaphors as powerful cues about the effectiveness of reform efforts, I use examples from conflict analysis to illustrate how so‐called ‘unmarked’ metaphors are often more powerful than marked ones. Exploring metaphors used by scholars and professional bodies in advocating reform, I scan linkages between proposed metaphors and change, highlighting metaphors in the American Carnegie report as particularly generative. While crisis metaphors have increased in use, they do not seem to have stimulated significant changes. I suggest this may be because of powerful unmarked metaphors. The article concludes with recommendations on discursive and dialogic ways of guiding legal education reform.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it