MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018172971

Court Review: Volume 39, Issue 4 - Editor's Note

2003· article· en· W7018172971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJury Decision Making Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Volume (thermodynamics)Action (physics)Poison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactions to the lead article in this issue may vary greatly. Some will find its conclusions surprising, while others will simply find new labels for concepts they already understand. Nancy Perry Lubiani and Patricia H. Murrell apply the concepts of emotional intelligence to judges, including suggestive evidence that judges who are rated best in bar association surveys are the ones who score highest in emotional intelligence. Another article follows up on our Spring 2000 special issue on therapeutic jurisprudence: David Wexler returns with some specific thoughts on how judges can promote offender rehabilitation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0080.002
Research integrity0.0310.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.045

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicJury Decision Making ProcessesFrench-language works237,207