Exploring fatal facts: current issues in coronial law, policy and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Death investigation and coronial practices have undergone significant social, political and legal scrutiny in recent years. A wave of coronial reform has occurred across jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with a concomitant focus on the adequacy of death investigation law and policy. Taking key coronial developments in the UK and Australia as its starting point, this paper explores a legal jurisdiction undergoing immense legal and policy reform to illustrate why coronial law and practice is of increasing scholarly interest. It begins by tracing the contentious landscape of UK coronial law reform, which has also resonated internationally, thereafter examining key controversies that refocused attention on the value of the jurisdiction, before discussing contemporary coronial issues including, publicity, human rights and death prevention.
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 | 0.087 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".