MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990101384

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association, Vol. 58, No. 2

2022· article· en· W6990101384 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudicial independenceIndependence (probability theory)Judicial reviewJudicial opinionSupreme courtPublishing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil Cases in the Supreme Court’s October 2018 Term by Todd E. Pettys Do Judges’ Instructions about Eyewitnesses Really Work?: A 2019 Update by Christine M. McDermott and Monica K. Miller Elected v. Appointed: Who Wins? Judicial Selection — Book Review/Q&A by David J. Dreyer Editor’s Note President’s Column Crossword Thoughts from Canada The Resource Page

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)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.075

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207