MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104562674

Being Innovative in Exploring Litigation Alternatives

2020· article· en· W3104562674 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Ha-Redeye, Aravinth Jegatheesan, Cansu Aydemir, Dharshani Arumugam

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject commissioningLegislatureCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OppressionPandemicBusinessEngineeringPolitical sciencePublishingLawMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided numerous challenges to legal practitioners, and especially in the area of virtual commissioning and notarization. This paper looks at some of the legislative developments during the pandemic, as well as some of the technical requirements that might make online commissioning and notarization possible, while utilizing an anti-oppression framework. Finally, the paper reviews some of the advances in artificial intelligence that might be of interest to the trust and estates bar.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0250.022
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207