MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598412328

Dedication: The Honorable Jerome Turner

2000· article· en· W2598412328 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glen Reid

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œUniversity of Memphis law review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawNothingReputationMemphisUncannySociologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyPsychoanalysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GLEN REID, JR * Partner in the law fine of Wyatt, Tarrant 8c Combs, Memphis, Tennessee. I first got to know Jerry Turner, personally and professionally, after I joined Canada, Russell & Turner (CRT) in 1977. I had heard about his excellent reputation as a trial lawyer, but had never met him until shortly before I joined the firm. In fact, since CRT did not have any lawyers practicing criminal law, before finalizing my decision to join the firm, I talked to a number of lawyers who had defended criminal cases that I had prosecuted to get information about the partners at CRT. In discussions with Lucious Burch, Jim Causey, Hal Gerber, Frank Glankler, Jim Manire, and others, I heard nothing but good reports on Jerry Turner. He was described as an intelligent, industrious, and honest trial lawyer; one I could learn much from in the practice of our profession. The favorable comments were soon confirmed. Over the next several years, I worked for and with Jerry on a number of cases, many involving complex litigation. I was immediately impressed with his love for the law. While I much preferred the simple cut and dry legal issues, Jerry preferred the more complex, esoteric legal issues. In fact, he had an uncanny ability to quickly diagnose a set of facts and identify issues that were not readily apparent, but that would eventually surface in the course of complex litigation. As predicted, over the years, I learned a lot from Jerry Turner about the practice of our profession. While he helped me hone my skills as a trial practitioner, his biggest influence on me and others was in the area of professionalism. Jerry believed that being a licensed attorney was a privilege, not a right granted by a license hanging on the wall. He believed that all attorneys had a duty to be civil and courteous in the practice of law, no matter how much hostility or ill will might be generated by the litigants or adversaries. In our many discussions, Jerry stressed professionalism, and he practiced what he preached. In the early 1980s, Jerry was one of the first to begin stressing civility. While he always represented his clients with industry and enthusiasm, he recognized and emphasized that winning was a byproduct of the process and was never worth compromising principle or lowering the level of professionalism that our craft demands. When Jerry Turner became Judge Jerome Turner in 1988, he continued to practice what he preached. At his swearing in ceremony, he expressed his views of what was expected of him as a jurist: I have some fairly strong thoughts about what a Judge ought to do, and I think that you are entitled to hear them. The first and by far the most important, in my opinion, is integrity. This is a characteristic that is the ultimate demand of any Judge . . . Fairness and impartiality are critical. The justice we strive for implies fairness, and fairness demands that impartiality. Thirdly, and not least importantly, a Judge should be courteous, without anger and without arrogance, but even tempered. And that politeness should be shown not only to the jurors who appear in his courtroom to decide cases, not only to the parties and witnesses, nor only to the courtroom employees, but in my view, perhaps most of all, the politeness should be exercised toward the lawyers who appear before him on a day-in and day-out basis. And he must be patient with a new lawyer, willing to listen to the sometimes, maybe oftentimes, overly lengthy arguments of counsel. And not too quick to presume that he knows all of the law, but to study the arguments of counsel conscientiously. In the twelve years that Judge Turner was on the bench, he never strayed from his ideals. He judged every case that came before him with integrity, fairness, and impartiality. He was always polite and courteous, even when circumstances caused him to be firm with a litigant or a lawyer who stepped out-of bounds. He was always patient with the young lawyers, always willing to listen to both sides of an argument before making up his mind, and always studied the arguments of counsel before making a ruling. …

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)0.001
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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œUniversity of Memphis law reviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207