Bibliographic record
Abstract
RtSUMgLa recherche sur le besoin juridique non satisfait en Australie a subi un retard consi-d6rable et bon nombre d'organismes ont not6 que les donn~es relatives au <, besoin non satisfait o en terme d'aide juridique sont insuffisantes.Le concept du ,< besoin juridique non satisfait >, est probl6matique, et une grande partie des travaux ant6rieurs dans ce domaine a fait lobjet de vives critiques.Cet article contribue h une meilleure compr6hension de ce domaine complexe.Se basant sur les publications australiennes et internationales, un bref survol historique de la recherche sur le besoin juridique est fourni ainsi qu'un rsum6 des diverses critiques ayant trait A cette recherche.Un expos6 est ensuite fait sur des 6tudes plus r&entes entreprises en Angleterre, en Nouvelle Z61ande et aux Etats-Unis.Enfin, une nouvelle approche A la recherche dans ce domaine est propose : une approche qui est fond&e sur le cadre des droits de la personne.Cet article intbgre aussi les opinions exprim~es par des membres de la magistrature australienne, de la profession 16gale et des organismes de services communautaires ou dorganismes statutaires sur la question du besoin juridique.
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 | 0.024 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 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".