MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555205963 · doi:10.3138/utlj.4007

The post-modern lawyer: Technology and the democratization of legal representation

2016· article· en· W2555205963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal professionDemocratizationLegal processLegal realismLegal servicePolitical scienceLivelihoodLawPractice of lawLegal researchLegal ethicsLegal pluralismLegal educationEmpirical legal studiesSociologyDemocracyPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, scholars and the media have chronicled the challenges facing the legal profession: notably declining law school enrolment, higher unemployment for law graduates, and technological advances that increasingly threaten the livelihood of lawyers. To many, these developments confirm suspicions that the legal profession is in an irreversible decline. This article takes a more sanguine view about the profession’s future. While technology has indeed contributed to the current struggles of the legal labour market, it has centred thus far on automating the rule-based tasks of lawyers. The latest technologies – still in their nascent stages – focus on facilitating how lawyers analyze more complex legal questions. I argue that these intelligence augmentation technologies will reduce the cost of legal services for both lawyers and litigants, democratizing the legal profession in the process.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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