Bibliographic record
Abstract
About forty to fifty years ago there was the first great transition, from practice being physically downtown and taught by guys in practice, to the academy.Now it looks as though there is a lot of pressure -which incidentally I agree with, but that's not the point -that we went too far in the purely academic direction, and should move more towards the professional direction.So is the pendulum going to move back to some extent?And of course, your program at Lakehead 1 is the one that's moved farthest in that direction so far.Theoretically, if we were to move in the Lakehead direction, what would we actually have to do?Not in excruciating detail, but just a broad understanding of what we do, which I think is a lot less than people think.I think people have the idea that your model is much more radical than it is, but I think for our school, it's surprisingly incremental.We'll start this off by tracing your own odyssey through here.To begin in primordial times, Lee, you were in education before you came to law school.So were you actually a practising teacher? Lee Stuesser (LS): Yup.I taught high school
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".