MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130796309 · doi:10.1111/1467-6478.00247

Evaluating the Scottish Public Defence Solicitors’ Office

2003· article· en· W2130796309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamara Goriely

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicityConvictionPublic defenderLawPublic officeBusinessPolitical scienceCriminal justice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate continues over whether salaried public defenders are more cost–effective than private practitioners. A three–year evaluation of the Edinburgh pilot office found that public defenders resolve cases at an earlier stage. Their clients were more likely to plead guilty at preliminary hearings, and less likely to hold out to the day of trial. This has the (so far unrealized) potential to save legal aid costs, and it inconvenienced fewer witnesses. But it also meant that public defenders had a higher conviction rate. Furthermore, in Scotland (unlike Canada) earlier pleas did not lead to lower sentences. Clients described public defenders as businesslike but felt less emotionally supported. Finally, the study showed that it is not easy to realize cost savings. Pilot offices, operating in the glare of publicity, incur some additional costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and SocietySame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207