Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals are often creatures of habit, and over time those habits come to us. Educational experiences and group norms frequently channel conventional patterns of being and doing. Such processes have virtues - they can promote coherence, continuity, cohesion and efficiency. However, they can also result in conformity and stultification. Judges are one profession with a very defined concept of who they are and what they do. They are governed by principles such as independence, integrity, and impartiality. These are fine values but they risk becoming taken for granted assumptions slipping out of the judicial consciousness. It might be helpful for judges to consider some challenges faced by another profession - architects. Marcus Vitruvius argued architects must be guided by three principles: commodity, firmness and delight. Function (or commodity) comes first because a primary purpose of most architecture is to accommodate a building's or purpose. Judges are also concerned with Most law - family, contract or criminal - is very much about ensuring protection. Because of innumerable legal rules it is helpful for judges to keep the bigger question of foremost in their minds as they exercise powers of judgement.Louis Sullivan's assertion form follows function connects to the second of Vitruvius' principles: firmness. Once a building's is determined, the and structure best achieving that must be considered. Judges also need to think about how form follows function. They need to reflect on how the structures of law - rules, principles and precedents - frame capacity for judgement.Beauty or delight is Vitruvius' third principle. Many architects seek an aesthetic. Beauty, of course, shifts over time and space, but the yearning remains pervasive. Judges too must also go beyond and structure. Justice also shifts in time and space, but a larger yearning to pursue the good remains perverse.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.167 |
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".