MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086337398 · doi:10.3138/utlj-2020-0038

Office and profession in the design of modern institutions

2020· article· en· W3086337398 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

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMarxism and Critical Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentalismFunction (biology)BureaucracyPublic relationsNexus (standard)Element (criminal law)Political scienceWork (physics)Law and economicsSociologyLawPublic administrationEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Office and profession represent two distinct modes by which work can be regulated. The first has a primarily instrumental logic, which aims to align the private interests of the office-holder with the desired function of the office nexus. The second involves a distinctly anti-instrumentalist commitment, which is supposed to prevent the complete instrumentalization of professional expertise by clients and bureaucracies. This article considers the conjunction of office and profession as an element of institutional design of the sort found in the modern judiciary, the hospital, and the university. After analysing the useful tension that can be achieved by having office-holders who are also professionals, it then explains why recent social developments have put this mechanism under considerable strain in a way that should be a cause for concern for public lawyers and legal theorists.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.165 · 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