The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction M.Naughton PART I: SETTING THE SCENE The Importance of Innocence for the Criminal Justice System M.Naughton PART II: VOLUNTARY SECTOR PERSPECTIVES Thoughts from a Victim Support Worker H.Kierle Challenging the Refusal to Investigate Evidence Neglected by Trial A.Green The Failure to Live Up to its Stated Values?: The Case of Michael Attwooll and John Roden D.Eady The Failure of the Review of the Possible Wrongful Convictions Caused by Michael Heath S.Sekar PART III: PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES Historical Abuse Cases: Why They Expose the Inadequacy of the Real Possibility Test M.Newby Only the Freshest Will Do C.Malone Applicant Solicitors: Friends or Foes? G.Maddocks & G.Tan The Inadequacy of Legal Aid S.Bird PART IV: ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVES After 10 Years: An Investment in Justice? R.Nobles & D.Schiff Real Possibility or Fat Chance? K.Kerrigan Press and Release: UK News Coverage of the CCRC Since 1996 P.Mason The CCRC as an Option for Canada: Forwards or Backwards? C.Walker & K.Campbell A View from the United States R.Schehr PART V: CONCLUSION Conclusion M.Naughton References Index
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it