MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6994499722

eAccess to Justice

2016· other· en· W6994499722 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOAPEN (The OAPEN Foundation) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedia and Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsEconomic JusticeDigitizationLeverage (statistics)Criminal justiceInformation and Communications Technology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can we leverage digitization to improve access to justice, without compromising the fundamental principles of our legal system? eAccess to Justice describes the many challenges that come with the integration of information and communication technologies into our courtrooms, and explores lessons learned from digitization projects from around the world. Edited by Jane Bailey and Valerie Steeves. Contributions by Trevor Scott Milford; Akane Kanai; Assumpta Ndengeyingoma; Jacquelyn Burkell; Madelaine Saginur; Priscilla M. Regan; Diana L. Sweet; Jessica Ringrose; Laura Harvey; Jordan Fairbairn; Andrea Slane; Shaheen Shariff; Ashley DeMartini; Gillian Angrove; Matthew Johnson; Sarah Heath; Betsy Rosenblatt; Rebecca Tushnet; and Leslie Regan Shade. Keywords: Privacy, identity, equality, online environment, women, cyberfeminism, policy

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1590.907

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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