MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553335236 · doi:10.3138/utlj.3860

De-Ciphering Self-Help

2016· article· en· W2553335236 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zoë Sinel

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)Economic JusticePolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsScholarshipGovernment (linguistics)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dominant view of self-help is that it is a remedy exercised by individuals as an alternative to seeking state-sanctioned aid. In other words, self-help consists in ‘legally permissible conduct that individuals undertake absent the compulsion of law and without the assistance of a government official in efforts to prevent or remedy a legal wrong.’ Indeed, self-help is often vaunted as an efficient, or at least potentially efficient, alternative to the slower, costlier, and more cumbersome civil justice system. In our world of increasingly exorbitant legal costs, in which few have meaningful access to the civil justice system, remedies that can be initiated and executed without prohibitive expense merit scholarly attention. Notwithstanding this potential promise, the legal scholarship on self-help is meagre, and, moreover, just what behaviour counts as self-help is left unclear. Self-help, as it is currently understood, risks becoming a meaningless term, a cipher through which almost any behaviour initiated by an individual in furtherance of her legal rights can count as self-help. This article defends a narrower conception of self-help than that recommended by the dominant view. In so doing, it clarifies some of our misgivings about, and checks some of our hopes for, self-help. Self-help, properly understood, is not an alternative to the civil justice system. It is a privilege to act vis-à-vis another in a certain way when certain circumstances exist, and its exercise is always defeasible to a final determination by a court. Self-help, in other words, is not equivalent to taking the law into one’s own hands, as some have implied. This conclusion should comfort those who might worry about the extra-legal nature of self-help and who ask with some trepidation how the unilateral action of one individual can determine the scope and existence of the rights of another. Based on this article’s understanding of self-help, it simply cannot. This conclusion, however, might disappoint those who hope that self-help can be a part of the solution to our current access-to-justice crisis. If it is not a true alternative to the civil justice system, then the specter of costly, inefficient litigation and adjudication remains.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207