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

Thinking like a private lawyer

2017· article· en· W2766092601 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christopher Essert

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207