MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412991209 · doi:10.54119/jflp.rojl5550

Food Law & Policy: An Essential Part of Today's Legal Academy

2017· article· en· W4412991209 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emily Broad Leib, Baylen J. Linnekin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Law & Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignTemple UniversityFordham UniversitySanta Clara UniversityUniversity of OregonUniversity of MiamiUniversity of South CarolinaGeorgia State UniversityLoyola Marymount UniversityUniversity of CincinnatiPepperdine UniversityUniversity of DenverGeorgetown UniversityUniversity of LouisvilleUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of WashingtonBaylor UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutMichigan State UniversityUniversity of KansasOhio State UniversityWake Forest UniversityLoyola University ChicagoHarvard UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of MissouriUniversity of PittsburghSyracuse UniversityUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLouisiana State UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaGeorge Washington UniversityTulane UniversityYale UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonArizona State UniversityUniversity of Notre DameYeshiva UniversityEmory UniversityMarquette UniversityWest Virginia UniversityFlorida State UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaBrigham Young UniversityVanderbilt UniversityYork UniversityGeorge Mason UniversityBoston College
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Article updates the authors’ seminal 2014 Wisconsin Law Review article, "Food Law & Policy: The Fertile Field’s Origins and First Decade," which was the first scholarly work to detail the fascinating origins and explosive growth of the legal field of Food Law & Policy. Using the same ten criteria the authors developed to measure the growth of Food Law & Policy for the 2014 article, this Article measures and details the field’s impressive growth since that time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.027
Scholarly communication0.0220.023
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food Law & PolicySame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207