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
This article traces the rules governing the admissibility of photographs into evidence in the courts of law of Canada, the United States, and Britain. The discussion is grounded in the nineteenth-century discourse of photographic objectivity, and examples of case law and legislation are cited to show the evolving response of the courts. The legal understanding of photographic evidence is examined from the late nineteenth century onward, and the twenty-first-century concerns surrounding the authenticity and admissibility of digital photographs are highlighted. “Photographs cannot tell stories. They can only provide evidence of stories, and evidence is mute; it demands investigation and interpretation.” RESUME Ce texte retrace les reglements qui gouvernent l’admissibilite des photographies en tant que preuves dans les cours de justice au Canada, aux Etats-Unis et en Grande-Bretagne. L’auteur base son analyse sur le discours de l’objectivite photographique du XIXe siecle, et des exemples de jurisprudence et de legislation sont utilises pour montrer l’evolution de la reponse des tribunaux. Il examine la valeur legale de la preuve photographique a partir de la fin du XIXe siecle jusqu’a present, en soulignant les preoccupations du XXIe siecle par rapport a l’authenticite et a l’admissibilite de la photographie numerique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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