MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928840603 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n3p40

Keywords in Written Academic Legal Texts: A Corpus-Derived List

2019· article· en· W2928840603 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsFocus (optics)Computer scienceVocabularyNounCorpus linguisticsNatural language processingLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceRange (aeronautics)Proper nounPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the Written Academic Legal Vocabulary (WALV), a discipline-specific genre-focused list of keywords in a corpus of academic legal texts. To generate this list, a purpose-customized corpus of full-length academic texts is created and analyzed with the help of corpus-based analytical tools. Items on the list are chosen based on criteria such as frequency of occurrence, range and keyness. The keywords recur more frequently in a specialized corpus than in a general reference corpus, a finding that attests to the pedagogical utility of these expressions as possible focus of explicit instruction. The final list consists of 298 headwords and 219 families (lemmas). Findings also indicate that the list includes words belonging to different grammatical types, the most common of which are nouns. The list also incorporates a large number of abbreviations, shortenings and acronyms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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