Third Party Rights of Appeal: Enhancing Democracy or Hindering Progress?
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
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Professor Jill Grant for her thoughtful comments on a draft version of this article. Notes 1. Croplife Canada v. Toronto (City) 75 O.R. (3d) 357. 1. The Scottish Executive is currently ruled by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition: the partnership agreement is the coalition's published programme for government. 1. The Scottish Executive is currently ruled by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition: the partnership agreement is the coalition's pub;ished programme for government. 1. For example, TPRA have been called for by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (2000) 13th Report: The Planning Inspectorate and Public Enquiries, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002) 23rd Report: Environmental Planning. 2. At the time of writing (March 2006) this is the last year for which comprehensive data are publicly available. 3. Indeed, Heap (1997 Heap, D. 1997. 50 years of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, or the door by which I entered. Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, 697: 697–998. [Google Scholar]) notes that the need for planning permission was seen at the time as being "the biggest interference with the liberty of the individual short of jail" (p. 697). Correspondence Address: Geraint Ellis, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPACE), Queen's University, Belfast, David Keir Building, Stranmillis Rd, Belfast BT9 5AG. g.ellis@qub.ac.uk
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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