Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Law Reform Commissions are permanent bodies which operate in common law countries, and are charged with the task of recommending law reform. The Commissions conduct research into the need for law reform, and it appears this research is guided by a common set of broad principles. A comparison of the ways in which the New Zealand Law Commission and the recently defunct Law Commission of Canada put these principles into practice reveals that different Commissions use different approaches when putting these principles into practice. These different approaches reflect the ways in which the role of law within society and the role of the Law Commissions in shaping the law are conceived. For some Commissions, legal reform is a technical process driven by a desire for increased efficiency and effectiveness. For other Commissions, legal reform is seen as directing, rather than merely reflecting, social and legal norms, and is self-consciously aimed towards achieving the goals of social justice.
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 | 0.234 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".