MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132891833

Ernie's Three Worlds

2011· article· en· W7132891833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicJungian Analytical Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)ScholarshipPossible worldThird world
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in celebration of Professor Ernest Weinrib's receiving the 2009 Killam Prize, Canada's most distinguished annual award for outstanding scholarly achievement.It offers a very personal interpretation of the contributions that Weinrib has made to private-law scholarship over the last thirty years and is organized around three closely related questions that he has addressed in his work: What is a theory?What is a theory of law? and What is a theory of private law?His answers to these different questions land Weinrib in three different worlds -the world of the university, the world of the law school, and the world of legal practice -but it is Weinrib's special contribution as a legal philosopher to have brought all three much closer together.Keywords: internal theory/formalism/equality between persons/public justification/corrective and distributive justice/tort theory This is a wonderful occasion.We are all here to celebrate the career of someone who has a very special place in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto.And last night, at a special dinner in his honour, a number of Ernie's colleagues and former students at the faculty took the time to tell him what he has meant to them personally and to all of us collectively, over the years -how he holds a very special place in our hearts and, frankly, a very firm grip on our minds as well.But today, I want to think much more generally or broadly about Ernie's place in the world.Indeed, I want to think, and hopefully get you to think, about Ernie's place in three different worlds, worlds that sometimes seem far apart, but worlds that Ernie's scholarship has somehow managed to bring much closer together.Notice what I do not say: I do not say that he has united these three worlds into one so that the differences among them are lost to some homogenizing force that obliterates the special contributions of each.As we all know, that is never Ernie's way.Rather, his scholarship shows how each of these three worlds exercises a reciprocal and illuminating effect on the other two, or, as he has put it in

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.011

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicJungian Analytical PsychologyFrench-language works237,207