Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis by publication analyses the emergence of independent judicial councils and their role in facilitating judicial control of court administration in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, the USA and other countries. While much research has been conducted into the relative merits of judicial control of court administration, the thesis extends the court governance literature by developing an analytical policy framework for a model Judicial Council of Victoria with broad statutory responsibility for improving the quality of justice in the court system. The thesis then applies the proposed analytical model to assess the legal and institutional framework of Court Services Victoria (‘CSV’), which was established in 2014 in order to transfer the responsibility for court administration from the executive government to the judiciary. The thesis argues that an independent judicial council, such as CSV, requires a strong developmental mandate to assist the courts improve their operations and respond to a multitude of internal and external challenges that they inherited from the executive system of court administration. At the level of the courts, the framework envisages the establishment of a compact management board, comprising executive judges and the court CEO, which is modelled upon a corporate board of executive directors, with full responsibility for court administration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".