Keeping the statute book up to date: a personal view
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
From the perspective of both the state and its citizens, it is vital that up‐to‐date versions of legislation relevant to an issue that concerns them are capable of being identified and accessed. If legislation is not readily and immediately accessible, finding it will prove to be a task that is beyond not only lay people but also competent and experienced lawyers. A principal cause of the difficulty encountered by users of statutes and statutory rules in finding the law on a particular topic that concerns them is that often the relevant provisions are to be found not in one self‐contained statute, but in a number of provisions scattered among a number of separate annual volumes. This article provides an overview of some historical and recent developments in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Jersey, and Canada, before proceeding to consider approaches by which responsible authorities keep their Statute Books accessible and coherent. It examines in detail the relative merits and demerits of the textual (or direct) method and the non‐textual (or indirect) methods of amendment. The article concludes that the benefits of having an up‐to‐date, accessible and coherent Statute Book must surely be obvious. Apart from the removal of the frustration, the cost savings to both the state and the private citizen in both time and effort are surely immense.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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