MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036813386

3.7 Chief Justice Hughes Delivered the Opinion of the Court for Gaines vs. Canada Case

2015· article· en· W7036813386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBlue Tiger Commons (Lincoln University - Missouri) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeState (computer science)Key (lock)Court decision
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes announced the 6-2 decision on Gaines v Canada on December 12, 1938. Writing for the majority, Hughes held that when the state provides legal training, it must provide it to every qualified person; it cannot send them to other states. Key to the conclusion was that there was no provision for legal education of blacks in Missouri, which is where Missouri law guaranteeing equal protection applies. To the court, sending Gaines to another state would have been irrelevant.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0230.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlue Tiger Commons (Lincoln University - Missouri)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207