Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positivist legal ethics theories provide that a lawyer’s role is to pursue her client’s interests within the bounds of legality. In the context of family law, the law allows for objectionable conduct by a lawyer which may even be harmful where there is family violence or children. In essence, there is tension between the positivist explanation of a lawyer’s role, and what that explanation allows a family lawyer to do. In this thesis, I provide a comprehensive examination of the canons of legal ethics theory as they explain a lawyer’s role. I defend positivist legal ethics theories and examine how they conceptualize the bounds of legality. Following from that theoretical account, I apply positivism to family law and argue that the considerable discretion provided by family law creates too much room for bad behaviour by family lawyers. Finally, I refute the idea that there are additional reference points to guide professional judgement that are unique to family law, and I argue for reform.
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 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".