Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 provides that a judicial declaration that legislation is incompatible with rights does not affect the law’s validity and ongoing enforcement. This paper challenges the widespread view by which a judicial determination that a law violates rights, coupled with that law’s continuing operation, gives the HRA a distinctive feature. It does so by reference to the Canadian experience of rights review. Judges applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have developed a practice of delaying declarations that rights-infringing legislation is invalid, despite having the power to strike laws down immediately. In both countries, then, laws infringing rights may remain enforceable. Contrasting judicial postures of constitutional enforcement and legislative engagement emphasize the Canadian shift from immediate orders and emphasize the strength of interpretive remedies in the UK. From the complainant's view, the HRA’s declaration of incompatibility is less distinctive than UK commentators often suppose. The larger message, given the impact of judicial practice, is the need for caution in presuming how rights instruments will operate and in assessing them as “weak” or “strong.”
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 | 0.036 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".