MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W650803607

The impact of Supreme Court employment law cases : leading lawyers analyze recent decisions and their impact on employment law

2010· book· en· W650803607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan A. Segal

Bibliographic record

VenueAspatore eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Law and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawPrecedentPolitical scienceCertiorariEmployment discriminationLabour lawLaw of the caseCommon lawOriginal jurisdictionCourt of record
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Impact of Supreme Court Employment Law Cases provides an authoritative, insiders perspective on influential Supreme Court cases from 2010 and their impact on employment law. Featuring partners from some of the nations leading law firms, these experts analyze developments in the area of employment law through the lens of Supreme Court cases like Conkright v. Frommert, Lewis v. City of Chicago, City of Ontario v. Quon, and New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board. These top attorneys discuss the responses of lawyers and their clients to recent changes and introduce new procedures and practices that have been implemented to help better serve clients. These authors also offer their predictions on what lies ahead for employment law in the upcoming year by previewing cases that are set to be decided by the Supreme Court. The different niches represented and the breadth of perspectives presented enable readers to get inside some of the great legal minds of today, as these experienced lawyers offer up their thoughts around the keys to success within this ever-evolving area of law.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAspatore eBooksSame topicBusiness Law and EthicsFrench-language works237,207