Institutional cultures and legal education at select Canadian law faculties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is an exploration of the uniqueness of Canadian law Faculties as sites of meanings about legal education. Through an empirical study, it aims to tease out the institutional cultures of three law teaching institutions: the Legal Sciences Department at the University of Quebec in Montreal, the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta and the Faculty of Law at the University of Moncton. The thesis notably focuses on the goals they each attribute to legal education, the structures surrounding it and its academic modalities. The findings show that each Faculty associates to such elements a set of meanings experienced as core to their self-conception, enduring through time and distinguishing them from others. Each Faculty thus constitutes a unique community of significations in resonance with its history, social environment and changing membership, even when accounting for the internal contestation and evolution of such meanings about legal education. This thesis builds on the insights of previous works showing that law professors experience their Faculty’s institutional cultures as endowed with normative force and sketch out the content of such cultural norms at the three case studies. It then examines how these same Faculties are engaging with the prominent challenge posed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 28 to further tease out their culture as well as demonstrate their relevance to improve our understanding of law Faculties’ responses to common contemporary challenges. The substantive and detailed engagement with the plural realities of legal education in Canada in this thesis aims to awaken the assumptions legal educators entertain about the goals and modalities of legal education and broaden their horizons of possibilities
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".