MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949196423 · doi:10.11575/prism/32682

An Evaluation of the Clicklaw Wikibook JP Boyd on Family Law: Final Report

2016· article· en· W2949196423 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
L.D. Bertrand, J.J. Paetsch

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLaw Foundation of British Columbia
KeywordsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, Clicklaw, a public legal education website operated by Courthouse Libraries BC, added JP Boyd on Family Law to its collection of on- and off-line wikibooks. Wikibooks are websites built on the MediaWiki platform, an open-source application that powers websites such as Wikipedia and Scholarpedia. Wikibooks are agile, highly adaptable websites typically used to present large amounts of information from multiple authors in a digestible, easily accessible and easily editable manner. Unlike most MediaWiki websites that allow any user to emend content, Clicklaw wikibooks use a unique content development model in which potential contributors are screened by the Clicklaw Wikibooks team before being given editorial privileges. The wikibook JP Boyd on Family Law contains more than 120 webpages of substantive legal information, about 500 definitions of common legal words and phrases, links to hundreds of key government and non-government resources, and more than 100 downloadable forms for the British Columbia Supreme and Provincial Courts. In print format, the wikibook exceeds 650 pages. Anecdotal information suggests that the wikibook has been very well received by the bar, the judiciary and the general public. In November 2014 the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family received a grant from the Law Foundation of British Columbia to conduct the first phase of an evaluation of the JP Boyd on Family Law wikibook. Courthouse Libraries BC, which operates the wikibook, agreed to match this funding to allow an examination of the longitudinal impact of the legal information obtained by users. The grant from Courthouse Libraries BC helped to defray the expenses in the first phase of the project and funded the second phase of the study. The first phase of this project evaluated the outputs and the outcomes of the wikibook by collecting and analyzing usage data from Google Analytics and user feedback provided through a pop-up survey accessed through the website and a followup survey administered one week later in order to gauge the efficacy of the wikibook as a collaborative public legal education model. The second phase of the evaluation examined the longitudinal effect of legal information obtained from the wikibook through a follow-up electronic survey, conducted with the original sample group six months after completion of their first phase surveys. Data from Google Analytics were also updated during the second phase for a one-year period from 1 February 2015 through 31 January 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207