MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W332617879

The Legal Turn of Mind

2000· article· en· W332617879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Globus

Bibliographic record

VenueETC.: A Review of General Semantics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWonderLawPoliticsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Rest (music)Legal professionSociologyLaw and economicsPhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PAUL GLOBUS [*] In Shakespeare's Henry VI, a character suggests, first thing we do, let's kill all the I wouldn't go that far, but there's no denying that the number of lawyers in society is excessive. Take politics, for example. Canadian politicians, particularly at the provincial and federal levels, are mostly trained as lawyers. The situation is similar in the U.S. and in Europe, where a law degree is often the tepid first step toward a career in public service. What would happen, I wonder, if this were not the case? How different would the world be if lawyers were not the ones in charge? The question is interesting because one can hardly imagine how things could be worse. Government institutions have never been models of cooperation and efficiency. As for our courts, just ask those individuals now being released from Canadian and US prisons after DNA testing has shown them to be innocent to define the word justice. There's at least a possibility that many of our failures in the political arena are attributable to lawyers and their intensive formal training in a mode of thinking that might be called the legal turn of mind. Lawyers would be the first to admit that they don't think and act like the rest of us (or, put another way, that they think and act like the rest of us but only one heck of a lot more so). In his popular book, The Greening of America, published in 1970, lawyer and Yale Law School professor Charles Reich shed light on the legal turn of mind with this description of the typical law-school experience: [Students soon] discover that they're expected to become argumentative personalities who listen to what someone else is saying only for the purpose of disagreeing. [They become] analytic rather than receptive people, who dominate information rather than respond to it, [as well as] intensely competitive and self-assertive. Since many of them are not this sort of personality before they start law school, they react initially with anger and despair, and later with resignation ... In a very real sense, they become stupider during law school, as the range of their imagination is limited, their ability to respond with sensitivity and to receive impressions is reduced, and the scope of their reading and thinking is progressively narrowed. Thus trained to be argumentative, domineering personalities, many young men and women who become lawyers develop a basic orientation to life wherein their stated or tacit objective is nearly always to win. Most individuals reshaped in this Me-versus-You / Us-versus-Them adversarial mold believe that anything done to gain and hold the upper hand is not only okay, it's absolutely central to survival and success. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueETC.: A Review of General SemanticsSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207