Legal Professions: Work, Structure and Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During recent decades legal professions have changed dramatically. Legal work has become more specialized, women have entered legal professions in large numbers, and the number of nonwhite legal practitioners has increased. Equally important as the demographic changes among legal professionals, have been movements in several countries to make legal practice more responsive to competitive markets for services - both nationally and globally. This volume introduces a collection of research articles that explore the important changes among legal practitioners in the US, England, Germany and Canada. The articles are organized around three general themes: changes in the structure and organization of legal professions and legal practices (in the US, England and Germany); legal culture, professional time and job satisfaction (in the US and England); and the changing nature of legal work practices in various fields of law. The volume addresses many of the newest and most exciting themes in the sociology of law, including the global law firm, the dilemma of part-time employment for legal professionals, the sociolegal construction of time, and the unique dynamics of legal practices in different fields of law
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".