Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the revised text of his keynote address delivered at the Symposium in Honour of Michael Trebilcock held at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 1–2 October 2009, Professor Priest traces the history of the law and economics movement, starting with Aaron Director and Ronald Coase, founders of the Journal of Law & Economics (‘Stage i’); proceeding to Richard Posner, Guido Calabresi, and the emergence of the efficiency theory of the common law (‘Stage ii’), and concluding with Michael Trebilcock, whose scholarship characterizes what Priest argues is the emerging third stage. The distinguishing feature of Trebilcock's scholarship is that he does not relentlessly promote market, as opposed to government, solutions to economic problems, although, in common with his intellectual predecessors, he does seek to determine the actual effects of legal policy on behaviour and views legal rules and institutions as means of shaping behaviour to achieve desirable social outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".