Integrity in legal practice: a report fom the Third International Legal Ethics Conference, Gold Coast, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Legal Ethics Conference (ILEC3) was held at the Sheraton Mirage Hotel on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia from 13 to 16 July 2008. This was the third ILEC. The first was held at the University of Exeter, England, in 2004; and the second at the \nUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand, in 2006.1 A colloquium associated with this series was also held at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2005. ILEC3 was co-hosted by the Law Schools at Griffith University, Gold Coast, and The University of \nQueensland, Brisbane. As two of the organisers, we were greatly encouraged by the continued enthusiasm and support of those who had attended ILEC1 and ILEC2, and that the series is growing in both the breadth and the depth of support it is receiving from legal ethics scholars. ILEC3 attracted 165 delegates; 107 academics, professional regulators and practising lawyers contributed papers. The international strength of the conference was reinforced by \nthe representation of contributors from Australia, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Japan, Kenya, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States. Although the series has always featured American speakers, delegates have tended to come from Commonwealth countries. A particularly promising feature of ILEC3 was the large number of scholars from the United States who attended and participated, some contributing two or three papers. Especially \ngiven the prominence of American work in the field, this bodes well for positioning the specialist ILEC series at the centre of legal ethics scholarship. It is a unique opportunity for international scholarly exchange in the field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".