MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123293857

Teaching 'Public Interest Vocationalism': Law as a Case Study

2015· article· en· W3123293857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelyn Downie, Richard Devlin

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge@SchulichLaw · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic interestArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyLawPedagogyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this short essay, we present law as a case study of teaching professionalism in the public interest. Our hope is that the accountancy profession, as well as other professions (including law), will be prompted to reflect on the potential for the concept of public-interest vocationalism to at least inform, if not transform, education in their domains. The argument proceeds in three stages. In Part I, we set the context by identifying a number of profound challenges now facing Canadian legal education. In Part II, we introduce the concept of, and provide a justification for, public-interest vocationalism. In Part III, we provide a model of how legal education could be reformed in order to reflect, accommodate, and engender public-interest vocationalism.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge@SchulichLawSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207