Foreword for the Inaugural Issue of the Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law (CJCCL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is my privilege to offer this brief foreword for the inaugural issue of the Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law (CJCCL), launched in 2013 by Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law. 1 will offer a word or two about the Journal and then a word or two about its first issue, which grapples with the complex interrelationship between health law and human rights.\nSome might see this as a perilous moment at which to launch a new law journal. We are by any measure at the crossroads of significant change in the dissemination of ideas about law and justice. Those ideas may now be found in the blogosphere, in real time listserv debates or from your favourite scholar on iTunes as readily as within the pages of a venerable law review. Law journals wrestle with whether to move purely online, and if so whether to be open access or throw up subscription pay-walls. Authoritative voices have heralded the demise of the law review.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.079 |
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".