Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October last year, the High Court handed down a unanimous decision on a sentencing appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA). Bugmy v R was decided on the very narrow ground that the NSWCCA had wrongly allowed a prosecution appeal as to the inadequacy of Mr Bugmy's sentence, without actually deciding that his sentence was manifestly inadequate. For that reason his appeal was allowed. The High Court also held that the CCA had erred in holding that the degree to which his deprived background as an Aboriginal person could be taken into account in sentencing, diminished with time and repeat offending. In allowing the appeal, the High Court said much on the topic of sentencing Aboriginal people and reaffirmed existing precedents. The 1982 High Court decision of Neal v R and the NSW decision of Fernando were reaffirmed and consideration was given to various Canadian decisions on sentencing Aboriginal people. They raised the question of the degree to which grossly disproportionate incarceration rates can or cannot be considered in sentencing discretions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".