Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jesse Epp-Fransen (JEF): I thought we could move chronologically and begin with your experience as a law student at Osgoode Hall.What was legal education like for you as a student?Was it comparable to the program now?In many ways Robson Hall is modeled after the shift at Osgoode Hall, as Osgoode was modelled after Harvard.Manitoba had a three-year program in place between 1921 and 1926 under Dean Thorson before it reverted to the apprenticeship model.It was not until 1964 that Robson Hall moved back to the three-year program.Cameron Harvey (CH): And we were the last school to move back to the full time program, which is ignominious in some ways.The re-adoption of the three year program was mostly as a result of Cliff Edwards 1 and Dale Gibson. 2 Dale Gibson was the éminence grise behind Cliff Edwards for all of Cliff's deanship.Anyway, what was it like at Osgoode Hall?I think it was considerably different there than what it is like here now.At Osgoode Hall, what I experienced was the same as what we had here from about 1964 through to the late 1970s.It was a much more professional law school than Osgoode and Robson Hall have become.In several ways, the program was geared mostly to preparing students to practise law.I would say almost
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.007 |
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".