MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535633923 · doi:10.53300/001c.5461

Australian Principles of Evidence (2nd Ed, 2004), Jeremy Gans and Andrew Palmer, Cavendish Publishing Limited

2004· article· en· W1535633923 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee Stuesser

Bibliographic record

VenueBond Law Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJury Decision Making Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingLaw and economicsLawPhilosophySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[extract] I write this review as an outside observer of Australia law. I hail from Canada. However, over the past decade I have had the opportunity to teach evidence in Australia on a number of occasions. Each time I need to re-learn the law. So it was that I came upon Australian Principles of Evidence (2nd edition). In this review, therefore, I share with you my perspective as an outsider, teacher and student of Australian evidence law.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.021

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBond Law ReviewSame topicJury Decision Making ProcessesFrench-language works237,207