Knowledge Management 11-1 11Knowledge Management inthe Public Interest The continuing education imperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
public and continuing professional legal education in Canada. The Legal Studies Program has a tradition of using a variety of knowledge management approaches for facilitating the identification, acquisition, interpretation, and dissemination of explicit and tacit knowledge relevant to legal and justice issues. Methods include conventional and electronic formats, such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing, computer conferencing, web sites, and web casting. The Legal Studies Program pioneered the use of the Internet for the delivery of legal services to Canadians. Innovative web-based services include ACJNet, Canadian Legal FAQs, LawNow Online, and VIOLET (a site for abused women). The Legal Studies Program also publishes LawNow, a magazine of legal information and commentary, and subject-specific resources. The Legal Studies Program features a multidisciplinary team of professionals including Internet strategists, legal specialists, editors, instructional designers, writers, educators, web site developers and managers, information management specialists, and marketing and sales representatives who provide legal education and information for the public.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".