Law Commissions and Access to Justice: What Justice Should We Be Talking About?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to their explicit mandates, law reform commissions have a generic mandate to make recommendations that are designed to increase access to justice. Moreover, contemporary commissions ought to interpret the concept of access to justice broadly. Even though they undertake topics of 'lawyers' law,' or at times limit their focus to the narrower legal system, commissions should also consider how law can be employed to realize economic or social justice. In order to make pragmatic recommendations to increase access to justice, commissions must study the non-legal realm and incorporate into their work the insights of other disciplines and the experiences of diverse communities. Furthermore, commissions must distinguish themselves from other law reform bodies by addressing the larger, more profound tasks that have the potential to redefine the meaning of access to 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 | 0.019 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| 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".