MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390954551 · doi:10.1080/03069400.2023.2289789

Unstructuring for insight: the legal profession in an age of AI and social change

2024· article· en· W4390954551 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Law Teacher · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal professionContext (archaeology)CentralityLegal practicePractice of lawEconomic JusticeProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Social workLegal educationPublic relationsSociologyWork (physics)LawLegal ethicsPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the capacity to solve ill-structured, messy problems has always been essential for lawyers, its importance and centrality are growing. On one hand, technology and alternative legal service providers are encroaching on much of the other work that was once considered to be at the core of legal professional practice. At the same time, ill-structured problems are proliferating as a result of the novel legal questions posed by new technologies and a renewed sense of urgency to address the access to justice gap as well as broader systemic inequality. To prepare law students for this kind of professional practice, law schools should teach students how to engage in a process I call “unstructuring” in which they seek a richer understanding of the details and context of an apparently well-defined problem in order to discover ways to see it in a new light.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.276 · 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