MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286131691 · doi:10.29173/alr1284

Dispute Resolution, Access to Civil Justice and Legal Education

2005· article· en· W2286131691 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Trevor C. W. Farrow

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCenter for Information TechnologyUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDispute resolutionAlternative dispute resolutionOnline dispute resolutionEconomic JusticePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Legal educationDispute mechanismPublic administrationLawPublic relationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines current dispute resolution leaching and research programs in the context of improving access to justice through recent civil justice reform initiatives. Animated by extensive domestic and international literature, online and survey-based research, the article explores the landscape of alternative dispute resolution (primarily at law schools), comments on the need for continued thinking and reform and acts as a leading resource to assist in the ongoing, collaborative development of dispute resolution initiatives in education in Canada and abroad.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207