Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against the backdrop of growing concerns in the UK about the influence of European human rights law and current Conservative proposals to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with an independent bill of rights, this book brings together a collection of papers exploring the reasons behind these antagonistic developments.The approach is wide-ranging and multi-faceted, drawing on some impressive contributors to treat: the nature of the emergent relationship between UK institutions and the Strasbourg Court and whether it is characterised by compliance, cooperation and/or conflict; the specific issues of conflict between the UK and Strasbourg; the relevance of EU institutions and law to the evolving relationship; the comparative relationship of other jurisdictions to Strasbourg; and the formative role of the media in public debate about human rights.This thematic breadth means the volume cannot examine any specific issue in great detail, and fails to develop an effective dialogue between different viewpoints.However, notwithstanding this, a number of insightful essays are on offer, and the editors make a valiant attempt to integrate the different issues and identify and disentangle the actual and perceived sources of strain in the relationship.The relationship between the UK and the Strasbourg Court is considered from different angles.There is an interesting exchange of views from two judicial protagonists on relations between the domestic courts and Strasbourg.Judge Mahoney examines the extent and development of judicial dialogue, advocating a more cooperative relationship.Lord Kerr provides a perspective from the UK Supreme Court, with an emphasis on the separate judicial competences, and a critical examination of developments in domestic case law on the effect of Strasbourg
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.279 | 0.198 |
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".