MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125627967

No Lawyer for a Hundred Miles? Mapping the New Geography of Access of Justice in Canada

2015· article· en· W3125627967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie Baxter, Albert Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeScope (computer science)Distribution (mathematics)LocalityLegal educationLegal professionPolitical scienceLegal serviceLawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract\nRecent concerns about the geography of access to justice in Canada have focused on the dwindling number of lawyers in rural and remote areas, raising anxieties about the profession’s inability to meet current and future demands for localized legal services. These concerns have motivated a range of policy responses that aim to improve the education, training, recruitment and retention of practitioners in underserved areas. We surveyed lawyers across Ontario to better understand their physical proximity to clients and how, if at all, that proximity promotes access to justice. We find that lawyers’ scope of practice varies based on a number of factors, and in several areas of law lawyers serve clients beyond their immediate locality. Our results suggest that debates about the geography of access should be premised on the goal of territorial justice as an equitable distribution of legal services rather than a narrower emphasis on the equal distribution of lawyers. French Abstract\nLa géographie changeante de l’accès à la justice au Canada entraîne aujourd’hui de nouvelles préoccupations, car de moins en moins d’avocats fréquentent les campagnes et les régions éloignées du pays, ce qui fait douter de l’aptitude de la profession à remplir les besoins actuels et futurs des services juridiques en région. Ces préoccupations motivent une gamme de politiques qui ont pour objectif d’améliorer la conscientisation, la formation, le recrutement et la rétention de praticiens dans les régions moins bien desservies. Nous avons interrogé des avocats un peu partout en Ontario afin de mieux comprendre leur proximité physique à leur clientèle et la manière, si c’est le cas, dont cette proximité favorise l’accès à la justice. Nous avons découvert que le champ d’activité des avocats varie en fonction d’un certain nombre de facteurs et que, dans plusieurs domaines juridiques, les avocats servent une clientèle dans un périmètre plus étendu. Nos résultats suggèrent que le débat sur la géographie de l’accès à la justice devrait avoir pour prémisses l’objectif de faire reposer la justice territoriale sur une distribution équitable des services juridiques plutôt que sur le concept plus étroit d’une distribution uniforme des avocats.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207