MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W308805183

Transnationalizing the Legal Curriculum: How to Teach What We Live

2006· article· en· W308805183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rosalie Jukier

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal educationCurriculumLegal researchLegal professionLegal psychologyPolitical scienceEmpirical legal studiesLegal realismEngineering ethicsPedagogyLawSociologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article showcases the unique program of legal study at McGill University’s Faculty of Law which integrates transnational legal perspectives into the legal curriculum and graduates all students with degrees in both Civil and Common Law, taught in a uniquely comparative, bilingual and integrated fashion. By freeing the study of law from traditional jurisdictional or systemic boundaries, the program succeeds in expanding the perspectives on legal education in an attempt to develop more agile legal minds in its students, and more outward-looking and more broadly-trained legal professionals in its graduates. The article canvasses the methodology of McGill’s legal pedagogy but also discusses the challenges of moving toward such an ambitious legal curriculum, how to overcome these challenges and the ultimate rewards of such a program.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207