MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W345341298

Planning and Conduct of the National Conference

2006· article· en· W345341298 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arthur J. England

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and Process · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsLawSupreme courtEconomic JusticePolitical scienceState (computer science)Sociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In 1975, appellate judges, lawyers, and scholars held a national conference on appellate justice. To mark its thirty-year anniversary and to provide a forum for evaluating the changes that have taken place in the thirty-year interval, a second conference was conceived by the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Federal Judicial Center, the National Center for State Courts, and the Institute of Judicial Administration at New York University College of Law. Individuals from each of those organizations served on a thirteen-member Steering Committee that included Seventh Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, and University of Pittsburgh School of Law Professor Arthur D. Hellman. (1) Professor Hellman also agreed to serve as Reporter for the Conference. Planning for the Conference took more than a year. Among the most important tasks undertaken in preparing for the Conference were the choice of participants, the selection of topics for discussion, the determination of a format, and the funding of judges and court personnel who might not be able to attend without outside financial assistance. The Steering Committee determined early in its process that the Conference would succeed only if it included representatives of all the major constituencies served by and participating in the appellate process, and that consequently the Conference would be by invitation only. The Committee extended invitations only to federal and state appellate judges, appellate attorneys, law professors, and appellate court staff personnel who were recognized for their expertise in, or who had significant practical experience in, either appellate jurisprudence or appellate court process, procedure, technology, or administration. The Committee received acceptances from almost all of the individuals to whom invitations were sent. Justice Stephen G. Breyer addressed the Conference, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was its guest at the opening reception. PLANNING AND STRUCTURE The Conference centered around small breakout sessions that followed substantive speeches and panel presentations on pre-selected topics. Professor Hellman took the lead in suggesting topics for discussion at the Conference. The Steering Committee then had extensive discussions to refine the topics, to choose and contact proposed speakers on the subjects selected, to prescribe the time frames for the speakers and panel presentations, and to select materials relevant to the topics that would be sent to conferees as the required advance reading. The breakout groups, each composed of twelve to fifteen conferees, were asked to discuss their experiences and ideas relating to the specific topic addressed in the immediately preceding plenary session. Each breakout group was a cross-section of federal judges, state judges, appellate attorneys, and state court personnel, and each group was diversified by geography and levels of judicial body represented. Each breakout group was assigned a discussion leader to keep the group focused on the subjects being considered, and a law professor who served as its reporter. Each group discussion was audio recorded, with the understanding that the tape would be held by the group's reporter to assist in reporting the group's discussion to Professor Hellman in his capacity as Conference Reporter. The audio tapes were then destroyed. Funding for the Conference was an early concern of the Committee. A reasonable registration fee was set to cover hotel charges for rooms and meals, and the costs of administrative services such as the reproduction and mailing of Conference materials. (2) The Federal Judicial Center agreed to pay the registration fees and travel costs of federal judge conferees. To fund state court personnel who might be unable to attend without financial assistance, three Fellows of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers created a non-profit foundation to raise the necessary money, and then to accept grant applications from conferees needing financial assistance. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1240.041

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Appellate Practice and ProcessSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207