MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196891202

WHERE ARE WE GOING? THE PAST AND FUTURE OF CANADIAN SCHOLARSHIP ON LEGAL ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

2021· article· en· W3196891202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Flavelle Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)ScholarshipOrder (exchange)Strengths and weaknessesPolitical scienceLegal ethicsWork (physics)Legal professionLawEngineering ethicsSociologyPublic relationsPsychologyEngineeringBusinessSocial psychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay I assess and reflect on the past and future of the Canadian literature on legal ethics and professionalism for government lawyers in order to identify strengths and weaknesses and areas for growth and to evaluate its long-term viability. I call for the existing and continuing first wave of doctrinal work to be joined by a second wave of analytical and critical work. Ultimately, I conclude that this literature is at a defining moment and that, without timely and sustained contributions by both academics and government lawyers, it risks failure as a meaningful area of study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207