MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766092601 · doi:10.3138/utlj.2017r-0028

Thinking like a private lawyer

2017· article· en· W2766092601 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 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate lawRelation (database)TortIndeterminacy (philosophy)CentralityContext (archaeology)LawSociologyEconomic JusticeLaw and economicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPublic lawPhilosophyLiabilityHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review essay of their books, Private Wrongs, Corrective Justice, and The Idea of Private Law, I discuss some aspects of the approach to private law (and, in particular, tort law) taken by Arthur Ripstein and Ernest Weinrib. Among the elements of their view that I highlight are: the role of a ‘form of thought’ and its relation to questions of ‘fit’; the centrality of correlative or relational normativity; the particular kind of justification that they take to be appropriate in the context of private law; and the importance of indeterminacy.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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