Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is an honour and pleasure to be invited to contribute a foreword to this notable collection of essays.That Wes Pue deserves recognition for his outstanding scholarship is without question.This book amply manifests Wes's considerable stature as an academic lawyer and his substantial and enduring contributions to the study and development of law-and-society style legal history.It also affords us an opportunity to reflect on what he has achieved.In his work, Wes has developed a distinctive, wide-ranging, and subtle cultural approach that places centre stage the role and significance of law, the legal profession, and law schools in shaping, transmitting, and normalizing our assumptions regarding ethnicity, masculinity, class, progress, and colonization.He makes a strong case for seeing law and legal professionalism and education as a means of representing and thus helping to create professional, national, religious, ethnic, and cultural identities.Following those commentators who accord a central place to law in the colonizing process, Wes argues that law, legal education, and the socialization of lawyers seek nothing less than the transformation of souls.For him, legal institutions, practices, and thought are often best understood not simply as instrumental to some set of guild interests, economic self-interest, or even societal change but also as factors that promote and protect images of identity.By examining the legal profession and legal education in their political and, especially, cultural contexts, Wes identifies important questions concerning societal governance.Wes depicts Canadian lawyers as energetic purveyors of historical myth, building worlds out of words.He identifies key historical errors in a professional apologetics founded on history.Acknowledging the mythic dimensions inherent in the use of history, he seeks to lay the foundations for what he terms "better myth." In these and other ways, he enhances our understanding of the use of history by the legal community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.584 | 0.523 |
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".