Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional rules of evidence deny the admissibility of data messages on the mere ground that it is digitised. The South African Electronic Communication and Transaction Act (ECT) was enacted to enable the courts to admit data messages. South African legislation in this regard has followed a similar approach taken by the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and the Model law. The use of electronic documents as evidence in court initially posed a number of conceptual challenges to the traditional statutory and common law in South Africa. On a close reference to provisional sentence summons in civil courts, South Africa has not yet amended the rules of civil practice to accommodate modern technology, for example, electronic discovery. The success of provisional sentence summons as one of the civil procedures to recover a debt is highly dependent on the liquidity of a document. Clearly, the authors of the definition of a liquid document may not have anticipated the development of technology to the extent that the traditional paper can be replaced completely by the electronic document. This paper seeks to discuss the challenges that may be faced by the courts when determining the admissibility of e-mail communication for the purpose of granting provisional sentence in South African civil courts. The ECT Act excludes liquid documents such as cheques and promissory notes. Therefore the focus of the paper is to discuss whether the requirements of a liquid document for purpose of provisional sentence summons can be met through the use of an e-mail evidence and the challenging aspects in that regard. Â Â
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 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.020 |
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".