MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001631867

Lawyers for Government Have Unique Responsibilities and Opportunities to Influence Public Policy

2008· article· en· W7001631867 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public policyPublic financePublic sectorWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part II of this article asks some preliminary questions about government lawyering.These include: who is the client of a government lawyer, whether lawyers bring anything special to the table in deliberations within government, and the balance between loyalty and independence in the way in which the chief government lawyer relates to the government's chief executive.Part III develops the distinction between and relationships among law, policy, and politics.Part IV discusses the factors that create opportunities for government lawyers to affect public policy.Part V gives a number of examples of impacting public policy based upon my own experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2010.042

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207