Vulnerable Individuals, Intermediaries and Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Witnesses can be vulnerable during questioning in the justice context for a number of reasons, including psychological, developmental, environmental and cultural issues. This chapter explores different interpretations from an international perspective of how intermediaries can be used to facilitate communication with vulnerable witnesses. Using a case study approach, it examines the use of intermediaries in England and Wales with child witnesses, from the initial communication assessment prior to a police interview, through to oral testimony at court. It then examines how complex language is often used during police suspect interviews and during cross-examination in the criminal courts. The usefulness of intermediaries for vulnerable defendants is examined and the ways in which intermediaries understand their professional identity when working with defendants is explored. Finally, the issues that can result in miscommunication in a cross-cultural context are examined using examples from Australia and Canada and the value of intermediaries in this context is explored.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".