MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471287922 · doi:10.29173/alr343

Regulating the Market for Legal Services

2008· article· en· W2471287922 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael J. Trebilcock

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityMarket regulationGovernment regulationBusinessWelfareConsumer welfareLegal servicePerspective (graphical)Law and economicsSocial WelfarePublic economicsEconomicsLawMarket economyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The regulation of the provision of professional services should be viewed from a consumer protection or welfare rationale. The legal profession should devote fewer of its regulatory resources to input regulation and instead, focus more of its resources on output regulation. A bottom line, output-oriented regulatory regime is what the consumer welfare perspective demands. While there are numerous advantages to the self-regulation of the legal profession, this self-regulation should not be absolute. Rather than moving completely away from the notion of self-regulation or to a form of co-regulation, the current regulatory regime should be tempered with appropriate public accountability mechanisms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207