Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early times, the English legal system accorded to the sovereign many prerogatives (privileges). This was usually to enhance his status, to reflect his pre-eminence. Or it was to provide funds for him, to pay for matters under his control - such as his courts, army and navy. Over time, many of these Crown prerogatives have become uncertain, confused and obsolete. The purpose of this article is consider a number of these prerogatives and to argue either for their abolition or their transfer to Parliament.In respect of Crown prerogatives relating to the courts it is asserted that prerogatives to: (a) establish common law courts; (b) sit as a judge; (c) withdraw any matter of State from the cognisance of a court; (d) request any judge to delay giving judgment; (e) sue in whatever court the sovereign pleases; (f) be exempt from court costs; (g) possess immunity from criminal prosecution - should be abolished. Also, that the civil immunity of the sovereign should be lifted, in part.In respect of Crown prerogatives relating to the military it is asserted that prerogatives to make - and declare -war and peace should pass to Parliament. And that prerogatives to: (i) impress subjects for the navy; (ii)issue letters of reprisal and marque; (iii) issue letters of safe conduct; (iv)prohibit subjects from leaving the realm; (v) order subjects to return to the realm; (vi) dig for saltpetre (for gunpowder); (vii) impose martial law; (viii)prohibit subjects from building castles (or enter the land of other subjects to erect fortifications for the defence of the realm in war time) - should be abolished. Also, that any Crown prerogative to erect fortifications should be replaced by legislation, where required.In respect of Crown prerogatives relating to public functions, it is asserted that the Crown prerogative to compel a person to accept a public office should be abolished. And that any residual functions of the Crown to act as parens patriae should be transferred to Parliament.In respect of the Crown prerogative to make legislation in the form of issuing proclamations, it is asserted they should be replaced by Statutory Instruments, in order for Parliament to have control over the matter.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".