MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564938851 · doi:10.19164/ijcle.v23i5.564

Clinical Legal Education in a Dangerous Time

2016· article· en· W2564938851 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Bühler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Legal Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheme (computing)Legal educationSituatedRelation (database)LawPolitical sciencePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theme of this conference is the “risks and rewards of clinical legal education”. When I first heard about this theme, I was particularly struck by the word “risk”. Risk is a word that feels so reflective of our world right now, and I thought I would try to think about where clinical legal education is situated in the larger world of risk and crisis that we inhabit today – what our role is in relation to this world and what the rewards of clinical legal education in our world of risk and endless crisis might be.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.018
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0140.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.005

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.482 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical Legal EducationSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207