COLLABORATIVE POLICY-MAKING, LAW STUDENTS, AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: THE REWARDS OF DESTABILIZING INSTITUTIONAL PATTERNS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heightened concerns and dialogue about access to justice have infused the law school setting in Saskatchewan and, to varying degrees, across the country. If there ever were a time to approach social justice reform differently – to upset traditional parameters around decision making and step around older hierarchies for input and design – it would be now. This article describes the Dean’s Forum on Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice (colloquially known as the Dean’s Forum) as a platform for genuine student engagement in the development of public policy in this important area. We offer our combined reflections, gathered inside our “teaching team,” about the unique pedagogical features of our experiment and its challenges. As we continue to grow with the project, we offer this Saskatchewan story as one example of institutional collaboration in a quickly evolving educational and social policy landscape.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".