Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practicing good advocacy in the new millennium may not be that different than it was in the century just past. What is different are some of the new challenges to be faced in becoming and remaining an effective and successful advocate. The foundations of skillful advocacy are best set down at the outset of one's legal career, and the development of the art must at all times be considered from its human, legal, and ethical sides. While the evolution of the practice of law is built upon the careful and steady historical ascendancy of precedent, there are practices and rules in our age that need to be critically examined. In this lecture, delivered before an audience comprised mainly of people newly entering the legal profession, the author shares his thoughts on the contemporary practice and ethical strictures of good advocacy. He draws on a wide body of knowledge, personal experience, and established practices in the legal profession, and imparts lessons on a thorough range of advocacy topics, including the importance of preparation and presentation, the art of examination and cross examination of witnesses, and tactics for addressing juries.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".