Regulating judges: challenges, controversies and choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Introduction to Regulating Judges: Beyond Independence and Accountability the authors begin by outlining the conventional frame of reference adopted in the judicial studies literature as being premised upon an independence/accountability continuum. While recognizing the strengths of this traditional approach, the authors argue that analyses of the judiciary could be enriched by adopting some of the insights from contemporary regulation theory. On this foundation they then develop a new conceptual framework based upon a regulatory pyramid comprised of values, processes, resources and outcomes. The latter part of the chapter then road-tests this innovative paradigm by filtering the 19 chapters through the regulatory pyramid to: (a) identify a number of common challenges; (b) highlight several significant controversies; and (c) emphasize the plurality of choices available for the regulation of judges.
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".