MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269607816

Practice and procedure: Costs on review - What charges are appropriate? Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067

2015· article· en· W2269607816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheryl Jackson, Paul Garrett

Bibliographic record

VenueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourContext (archaeology)LawWork (physics)Political scienceCivil procedureEngineeringHistoryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.387
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.387
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0230.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology)Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207