MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W608446170 · doi:10.33137/cal.v2i2.26083

Effect and Technique in Legal Aesthetics

2015· article· en· W608446170 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Analysis of Law · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAestheticsLegal realismBalance (ability)Meaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Proportionality (law)Empirical legal studiesLegal formalismLegal pluralismLawSociologyEpistemologyLegal professionPolitical scienceArtPsychologyPhilosophyBlack letter lawHistoryComparative lawPrivate law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discussions of legal aesthetics often proceed as if it were sufficient, in exploring law’s aesthetic dimensions, to refer to effects such as symmetry, balance, and proportionality. Those effects, however, might be produced by any number of techniques, and aesthetic technique tells us more about the meaning and context of legal ideas than effects do. After discussing various kinds of inquiry into legal aesthetics, this essay turns to Blackstone’s Commentaries as a source for the techniques that inform modern legal writing and analysis.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.077
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Analysis of LawSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207