Prediction, persuasion, and the jurisprudence of behaviourism
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- Science and technology studies
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.715
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
There is a growing literature critiquing the unreflective application of big data, predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine-learning techniques to social problems. Such methods may reflect biases rather than reasoned decision making. They also may leave those affected by automated sorting and categorizing unable to understand the basis of the decisions affecting them. Despite these problems, machine-learning experts are feeding judicial opinions to algorithms to predict how future cases will be decided. We call the use of such predictive analytics in judicial contexts a jurisprudence of behaviourism as it rests on a fundamentally Skinnerian model of cognition as a black-boxed transformation of inputs into outputs. In this model, persuasion is passé; what matters is prediction. After describing and critiquing a recent study that has advanced this jurisprudence of behaviourism, we question the value of such research. Widespread deployment of prediction models not based on the meaning of important precedents and facts may endanger the core rule-of-law values.
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.
The record
- Venue
- University of Toronto Law Journal
- Topic
- Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PersuasionJurisprudencePredictive analyticsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMeaning (existential)Software deploymentAnalyticsData scienceEpistemologyPsychologyLawPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPhilosophy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes