Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to legal information enables people to identify the full range of legal options available to them. In some cases, access to legal information allows people to resolve legal problems outside the court system altogether. Unfortunately, access to legal information in Canada has been described as poor. At the Law Society of Saskatchewan Library, we have been exploring the role libraries can play in improving access to legal information. Over the past three years, we have participated in a multitude of legal information initiatives with justice, community, and library stakeholders. I am here to tell you about these initiatives and what we have learned about promoting access to legal information in a library setting. This article is adapted from presentations given at the 2017 Canadian Association of Law Libraries Conference and the 2017 Saskatchewan Library Association Conference. L’accès à l’information juridique permet au public d’identifier une gamme complète d’options juridiques qui leur sont disponibles. Dans certains cas, l’accès à l’information juridique permet au public de résoudre des problèmes légaux sans avoir recours aux tribunaux. Malheureusement, l’accès à l’information juridique au Canada est décrit comme mauvais. À la Law Society of Saskatchewan Library, nous avons examiné le rôle que peuvent prendre les bibliothèques pour améliorer l’accès à l’information juridique. Au cours des trois dernières années, nous avons participé à de nombreuses initiatives sur l’information juridique avec des intervenants des milieux de la justice et des bibliothèques ainsi que des intervenants communautaires. Je vais partager avec vous ces initiatives ainsi que ce que nous avons appris au sujet de la promotion de l’accès à l’information juridique en milieu bibliothécaire. Cet article est une adaptation de présentations données aux congrès de l’Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit et de la Saskatchewan Library Association en 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".