Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia celebrated the centenary of Federation in 2001. The year 2003 marks the centenary of the High Court of Australia, which first sat on 6 October 1903 in Melbourne. The Commonwealth Constitution continues to flourish after more than a century as the founding document of the Australian federation; as J. A. La Nauze observed, Australians can ‘claim citizenship of one of the most venerable federations of the world’. He also remarked that Australia, together with the United States, Switzerland and Canada, were the four federations whose constitutions were framed and adopted before the end of the nineteenth century and which ‘have, so far, survived’. That the Australian polity has not only survived but has evolved into a prosperous independent liberal democratic nation is all the more remarkable given that the Constitution appears to be a ‘dull, remote and incomprehensible document’ which ‘seems to have no connection with life as it is actually lived’. Colin Howard, however, considered first appearances ‘misleading’, remarking that ‘[t]he Constitution has everything to do with life as it is actually lived in Australia’. An exception must, of course, be made for Chapter II, dealing with the Executive, which on its face suggests that the Governor-General runs the Commonwealth Government with the assistance of ‘the Queen's Ministers of State’. The deceptively simple words of the Constitution have provided the battleground for a number of major constitutional controversies in Australia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".