Bibliographic record
Abstract
Justice Stevenson was a great Canadian teacher, lawyer, and judge.He cannot be summed up succinctly, for three reasons.First, he was good in many ways, some of them ways underappreciated in recent years.Some of the ways were well blended with others.Second, he excelled in some of them in slightly unconventional ways.Third, he was modest, private, and always more interested in other people and their growth than in himself.He certainly was not motivated by earning money or by a desire for fame or popularity.Yet he was very likely the most popular, best-loved Edmonton lawyer or judge since the late Lawrence Cairns.William Stevenson was clearly one of the ablest graduates of the University of Alberta's Faculty of Law.Complex litigation was no problem at all for him; he could see all the connections and keep them all in his head.He was the true founder of the Alberta Law Review and got out its first issue.Doing so, he faced two obstacles.The first was that though student law reviews were fairly common in the United States, there were none in Canada or England.The second was that the first such student law review in Canada ultimately failed.It was the old Alberta Law Quarterly, which World War II had starved of students.That left behind some paid subscribers who had not received all the issues which they had paid for.Like all adults who lived through the Depression, the Faculty were nervous of any plan for a new business.So a compromise was reached.The Law Society would give a grant and each lawyer in Alberta would get a free copy of the new Review.Apart from that, no money would change hands.Benefitting the University's Law Library, the Alberta Law Review would merely trade subscriptions with other law reviews in the English-speaking legal world.The success of the Alberta Law Review so early is a testament to the strong foundation laid by William Stevenson, encouraged by Dean Bowker.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".