Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a survey of the attitudes of legal writers concerning judicial creation. A number of articles, studies and case comments in the areas of mens rea, duress and drunkenness are canvassed in order to determine their authors' views on the legitimacy of the rules established by courts in the above areas. Judicial creation often involves departures from traditional legal reasoning; the attitude of legal writers towards these departures is also studied. Finally, it is sought to establish the views of the doctrine on the characteristics and qualities which judicial creation should present. A number of points emerge from the study : attitudes towards judicial creation are generally favorable. The legitimacy of the creative role is most often taken for granted. As regards judicial reasoning, departures from stare decisis are generally seen as valid ; less unanimity is reached on departures from traditional rules of construction. There does not appear to be any perceptible difference between the attitudes of common law and civilian writers on judicial creation except on the point of rules of construction, where civilians seem somewhat more inclined to traditional views. In all cases, it was found difficult to determine the philosophical perspectives of the writers although these would normally be expected to have a strong bearing on the issue oj judicial creativity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".