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
“The modest objective of this book is to provide a clear explanation of the law relating to the licensing and planning control of gambling clearly and succinctly, principally as it relates to local authorities” (p. ix). This objective is admirably achieved; in the words of a well-known U.K. advertisement, it “does exactly what it says on the tin” (Ronseal Ltd.). The book comprises 28 chapters, 22 of which fall within the seven parts grouped under the heading “The Gambling Act 2005.” The eighth part, “Planning and Regeneration,” comprises the final six chapters. The book’s clarity stems not only from its structure but from its inclusion, in each chapter, of short paragraphs summarizing points of law pertinent to that chapter. A number of helpful charts (e.g., chapters 1, 11, and 19) also contribute to the book’s clarity. In addition to the specific duties set out in the Gambling Act, the book also deals with those duties that arise under the planning legislation and under the general law concerning the delegation of functions and proper decision-making.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it