MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015923369

What Court Staff Told Us: A Summary from the National Self-Represented Litigants Study 2011-2012

2012· article· en· W7015923369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)DutyConfidentialityDuty of careWork (physics)Jurisdiction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between December 2011 and December 2012, Dr. Julie Macfarlane (with assistance of Sue Rice, Project Manager) interviewed 101 court and agency staff (including registry staff, court clerks, legal information centre staff, duty counsel and others) working directly with SRLs in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. They provided highly consistent responses to our questions about their experiences with SRLs and the challenges they presented for their work.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207