Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have aimed to expound how the English legal system currently works, and the content of English law in all of its key areas of operation. Where we have deemed it appropriate, we have aimed to put a legal rule or principle in its social, historical or economic context. We have also put several areas of law into some legal theory settings. Given a little depth in another dimension, a plain legal rule will often be not just easier to understand but also more interesting. \nEnglish law probably exercises more influence, for better or worse, over people’s lives across the world than any other set of legal principles and procedures. This is certainly so in most of the 53 members of the Commonwealth, including the considerable jurisdictions of places such as Canada, Pakistan, India and Australia. The population of the Commonwealth is 1.8 billion – that is almost a third of the people on the earth. It is also worthy of note that the original law and legal systems in North America were largely based on the principles of English law. \nFew people go through life without, at various stages, developing strong opinions about the desirability or otherwise of some aspect of law. Moreover, lawyers constitute about one fifth of members in the House of Commons in the British Parliament, and it is clear that many debates about law are very important because the way the debates are resolved ultimately has a substantial effect upon the way we live. \nWe have, therefore, in this text allowed a critical element into our explanations and discussions. We have thought it helpful to present the legal theory underlying policies and law in many of the chapters of this book. At the end of the last century, a great many major changes were made to the English legal system and several areas of English 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.410 | 0.273 |
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".