Suing anonymously : when is the personal price to pay for justice too high?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Justice is served both by openness and by access, but these two values may in some cases be in need of careful balancing. Such cases would be, for instance, where the personal psychological harm to a prospective plaintiff of having her identity as plaintiff disclosed to the public would effectively bar her from launching the civil action in court. In appropriate cases, the solution would be to grant an anonymity order to the prospective plaintiff. However, there is no direct authority in South African law on the granting of anonymity orders in civil cases in general, which causes uncertainty that is not in the interest of justice. As such, I analyse the comprehensive test for the granting of confidentiality orders (which include anonymity orders) in civil cases that has been developed in Canadian law, namely the Sierra Club test. In brief, this test entails that an anonymity order should only be granted if such anonymity order is (a) necessary, and (b) proportional to its purpose. I conclude that the Sierra Club test could fruitfully be applied in our law.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".