MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Contractual Lens

2024· book-chapter· en· W4401784187 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Langille

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)BusinessOptometryOpticsMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Law of Work (LoW) begins with, and is built upon, the legal grammar and moral controversies of contract. The idea of the LoW as a necessary expression of limits upon contractual ordering is a very powerful lens through which we see and understand the LoW. While it is true that the LoW requires a structure of intertwined legal grammar and moral narrative, the view through our familiar contractual lens is problematic and limiting in the world as we now find it. Liberation from the vision provided by the contractual lens requires articulation of a broader normative purpose which will support that broader domain of the LoW made possible by escaping the contractual lens. Some legal evidence shows that such liberation and articulation are possible and underway.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207