Symposium: It's All in the Game: A Nonfoundationalist Account of Law and Adjudication, by Allan Hutchinson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue, the Osgoode Hall Law Journal presents a special symposium of review-essays on Allan Hutchinson's book, It's All in the Game: A Non-foundationalist Account of Law and Adjudication. A member of the faculty of Osgoode Hall Law School since 1978, Professor Hutchinson is well known internationally for his rich and provocative contributions to the literature of Critical Legal Studies. In numerous books, articles, and essays, he has challenged us to think harder about a wide span of issues in tort, constitutional law, jurisprudence,professional responsibility, judicial independence, law and post-modernism, and other fields. The review-essays that follow are written by three leading legal theorists from Canada (Richard Devlin), Australia (David Fraser), and the United States (Frank Michelman). They reconfirm Hutchinson's reputation for generating powerful theoretical insight, engaging wordplay, and lively intellectual controversy. They also mark a significant evolution in his work toward a more complex view of law's indeterminacy and the practice and politics of judging.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".