MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135999126

Drafting Proper Short Titles:Do States Have the Answer?

2012· article· en· W7135999126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Christopher Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Language and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Quarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsProcess (computing)Style (visual arts)Plain language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The titles of short bills often serve as legal reference points for legislation. Over the past quarter century, federal short bill titles have transitioned to a naming style that is saturated in evocative language to gain greater support and political advantage. However, states have short title policies that prevent such language that is seen at the federal level. This Article explores the federal bill drafting process and how it has increasingly become an issue. Further, it describes the state process, pointing to aspects that could provide assistance to federal policies.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0190.036
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscovery Research Portal (University of Dundee)Same topicLegal Language and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207