Bibliographic record
Abstract
If every court achieved 99.9 percent quality for litigants, should we be satisfied? In other endeavors, if 99.9 percent was the standard of excellence, the IRS would lose two million documents this year, 3,056 copies of tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal would be missing one of three sections, and 12 babies would be given to the wrong parents each day. For those industries, 99.9 percent is not good enough and it cannot be acceptable for courts either. Judicial excellence is a mindset. It must be an obsession or, as Aristotle said, “Quality is not an act. It is a habit.”\nToday being a judge is a 24/7 job. Judges are viewed as leaders in our community. We are, in a sense, role models in an era where it is very difficult to be a role model. The political rhetoric of our time has become so heated and polarized that trust and confidence in courts is jeopardized. The high-spending judicial races of some states are problematic but, lest anyone become complacent, even in Canada there are instances of political figures rather unfairly criticizing courts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".