Where Are We Going? The Past and Future of Canadian Scholarship on Legal Ethics for Government Lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay I assess and reflect on the past and future of the Canadian literature on legal ethics and professionalism for government lawyers in order to identify strengths and weaknesses and areas for growth and to evaluate its long-term viability. I call for the existing and continuing first wave of doctrinal work to be joined by a second wave of analytical and critical work. Ultimately, I conclude that this literature is at a defining moment and that, without timely and sustained contributions by both academics and government lawyers, it risks failure as a meaningful area of study.\nDans cet essai, l’auteur évalue le passé et envisage l’avenir des études canadiennes en matière de déontologie et de professionnalisme juridiques en ce qu’elles traitent des juristes gouvernementaux afin de déterminer ses forces, ses faiblesses et les domaines dans lesquels elle peut se développer, et de déterminer sa viabilité à long terme. Il recommande qu’une deuxième vague de travaux analytiques et critiques s’ajoute à la première vague de travaux doctrinaux en cours. Enfin, il conclut que ces études importantes se trouvent à une croisée des chemins et que sans des apports opportuns et durables de la part d’universitaires et de juristes gouvernementaux, elles pourraient connaître l’échec.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".