Critique-Inspired Pedagogies in Canadian Criminal Law Casebooks: Challenging "Doctrine First, Critique Second" Approaches to First-Year Law Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a critical evaluation of Canadian criminal law casebooks. The author explores the aims, practices, and challenges of these teaching texts by examining their relationship to critique-inspired pedagogical methods. A number of English-language Canadian criminal law casebooks add a welcome feature to the Canadian common law teaching landscape: all but one of six recently published casebooks teach doctrine and critique together. The research builds on an emerging scholarship of Canadian legal education by demonstrating evidence of critical political commitments and critique-inspired teaching methods within Canadian criminal law education. Yet casebook editors and other professors who utilize critical methods acknowledge challenges of teaching doctrine from critical standpoints. These discoveries lead the author to suggest that emphasizing the goals of teaching critique, including producing more effective lawyers and creating learning environments that value student diversity, will be helpful for moving forward with critique-inspired teaching.\nDans le présent article, l’auteure présente une évaluation critique des recueils de jurisprudence en droit pénal canadien. Elle explore les objectifs, les pratiques et les défis que comportent ces textes d’enseignement en examinant leur relation avec les méthodes pédagogiques inspirées de la critique. Un certain nombre de recueils de jurisprudence en droit pénal canadien de langue anglaise ajoutent une caractéristique bienvenue au paysage de l’enseignement de la common law au Canada : tous les recueils de jurisprudence récemment publiés, sauf un, enseignent la doctrine et la critique ensemble. La recherche s’appuie sur une nouvelle étude de l’enseignement du droit au Canada en démontrant l’existence d’engagements politiques critiques et de méthodes d’enseignement inspirées de la critique dans l’enseignement du droit pénal au Canada. Pourtant, les éditeurs de recueils de jurisprudence et d’autres professeurs qui utilisent des méthodes critiques reconnaissent les défis de l’enseignement de la doctrine à partir de points de vue critiques. Ces découvertes amènent l’auteure à suggérer que l’accent mis sur les objectifs de l’enseignement de la critique, y compris la production d’avocats plus efficaces et la création de milieux d’apprentissage qui valorisent la diversité des étudiants, sera utile pour aller de l’avant avec un enseignement inspiré de la critique.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".