Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are elements in the Caribbean who hold the view that the independence project could not be deemed complete until the Privy Council was replaced as the final court of appeal for the Caribbean by an indigenous body. The arguments advanced for abolition of the former imperial court are varied. The most important is that one cannot be half-independent; one was either independent and sovereign or not. One could not demand one's political and economic independence and remain subject to a foreign colonial court. Legal independence was the logical capstone of political independence. As Jamaica's Prime Minister P.J. Patterson expressed it, if we are fit to enact our own laws, we should be fit to interpret them ourselves (cited in Vasciannie 1996:2). Patterson was even more explicit in an address given February 2000, when he asked: Can our sovereignty be complete when the final word on the law as an essential ingredient in the functioning of our state is still the subject of external decision-making and interpretation by a ... court that is not indigenous? (cited in Vasciannie 1998:47) This view had been endorsed by the Organisation of Commonwealth Bar Associations at its Sixth Biennial Meeting in Jamaica in 1970. One notes that several former colonial states have abolished appeals to the Privy Council. Among them are Grenada, Guyana, Australia, India, Canada, Cyprus, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malaysia, Kenya and Zanzibar. It is however worth noting that being sovereign also means that a state can share responsibilities with another state or with some other regional or international body. It could also contract out functions to some extra-territorial agency, including bodies like the Caribbean Court of Justice or the Privy Council. Sovereignty could thus be devolved and reclaimed (Vasciannie 1998: 45-51).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".