MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347121535 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v32i1.4583

INTRODUCTION: GRADUATE STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP

2015· article· en· W2347121535 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laverne Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCONTESTEconomic JusticeSociologyWindsorLawPolitical scienceLibrary scienceMedia studiesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice is proud to publish issue 32 (1). This issue features a special section highlighting the scholarship of graduate students. While it is always a pleasure to read promising work by newer scholars in the fields of law and social justice, we are certain that this collection of articles represents some of the finest and thought-provoking scholarship stemming from current graduate students in law. The articles stem from a graduate student essay contest that WYAJ held in 2013 and for which we received many submissions.The collection of selected papers offers a view of legal and interdisciplinary research examining issues that are topically diverse but which are all of deep, long-term importance to the world of access to justice. A reader of the special section on Graduate Student Scholarship will find explorations of access to justice from the perspectives of equality rights, discretion, adjudication and methods of legal service delivery, to name a few.A prize was offered to two papers judged to be of exceptional quality. I am very pleased to announce that the winners of those two prizes are Andrew Pilliar, for his article “Exploring a Law Firm Business Model to Improve Access to Justice” and Blair A. Major, for his contribution, “Religion and Law in R v NS: Finding Space to Re-think the Balancing Analysis”.The Editorial Board thanks all those who submitted papers to the contest and to this final special issue of the Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice.Another notable feature of this issue is the introduction of a section called Research Notes. The Yearbook will periodically publish peer-reviewed research notes that present the findings of empirical (quantitative, qualitative or mixed method) research studies. This section aims to contribute to the growing and important body of empirical scholarship within the realm of access to justice socio-legal research.We hope that you enjoy this issue.Laverne Jacobs, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Issue 32 (1)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3050.204

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207