MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244425098 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107707191.002

Foreword

2016· book-chapter· en· W4244425098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dean Martha Minow

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most advanced justice system in the world is a failure if it does not provide justice to the people it is meant to serve. Access to justice is therefore critical. – Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada (2007) Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. – Frederick Douglass Neglected in today's headlines, blogs, and talk radio is a silent shameful crisis inflicting suffering and costing the nation money, legitimacy, and decency. Our justice system has become inaccessible to millions of people who are poor, of modest or even average means. As a result, every day, we violate the “equal justice under law” promise engraved on the front of the grand United States Supreme Court. Americans who cannot afford legal help routinely forfeit basic rights because they cannot afford to enforce them. Inherently wrong and unfair, our practices are also short-sighted. Studies show that each dollar spent on civil legal assistance can save three to six dollars of public funds needed to deal with the consequences. The problem is not remote. It affects people in every neighborhood. The law does not enforce itself, and so we all suffer when people cannot enforce their legal rights. But of course the brunt of the failure falls on veterans seeking benefits the nation guaranteed, victims of domestic violence needing legal protection, tenants and homeowners asserting their legal rights, and others who cannot find legal help. This book brings together a dream team of participants, organized by fine editors and introduced by the heroic leaders, retired Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the Supreme Court of Texas and Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals. The chapters offer vigorous descriptions of the problem, vivid accounts of long-term efforts, and detailed analyses of the multiple elements needed for an effective reform agenda. If scored for degree of difficulty, each of these elements would achieve high numbers. Describing the scope of the problem is challenging because by its very nature, the problem encompasses people who are not visible to law offices and courts because the individuals lack knowledge and resources to make their way there.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3570.310

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicLegal Education and Practice Innovations→French-language works237,207→