Rethinking 'Like a Lawyer': An Incrementalist's Proposal for First Year Curriculum Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law education, like the common law itself, develops incrementally. Thus the notion that law's rationality makes it amenable to scientific inquiry — the so-called Langdellian revolution in which law is seen as a science, the library its laboratory, case study its method — took some three-quarters of a century to become the dominant form of legal pedagogy in Canada. And while there have been other cross-currents, pedagogical movements and forms of instruction, the dominant mode of teaching students how to think like a lawyer is still the study of common law doctrines and the manipulation of rules within those doctrines. This is unsatisfactory for producing either first-rate practitioners or legal scholars. As law schools enter the 21st century and as new conceptions of law and lawyering emerge, we need a first-year course that, in an integrated fashion, aims to instill a culture of professional competence and ethics while at the same time laying the foundation for reflective and critical thinking about law. The course envisioned here — one that would supplement, rather than supplant, doctrinal analysis — aims to nurture both types of competency. The course content falls in three broad subject categories: philosophy of law and jurisprudence; history and development of the justice system and the legal profession; and law practice. The categorization is hardly unique, though the grouping of subjects in a single course may seem novel. The idea is to provide the foundation for both a scholarly, thoughtful professionalism and an approach to scholarship that is confident about its ability to critique the legal community because it knows something of what lawyers actually do. Moreover, it aims to build this foundation at the outset, when students are impressionable, excited about starting law school, and keen to learn.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".