A Theory of Democratic Adjudication: Towards a Representative, Accountable and Independent Judiciary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how the judiciary, particularly in the modern British context, could increase its representational capacity and its accountability while maintaining its independence. The analysis includes an examination of the functions and principles underlying the judiciary, as well as the current movement for judicial reform in Britain. The author suggests a number of ways for judges to be made accountable in order to promote dialogue between judges and the public, including the appearance before a Select Committee. It is also suggested that a Registrar of Judicial Interests would strengthen both judicial independence and accountability. The author further notes that the creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission, not only to monitor but also to appoint judges, would protect the judiciary's independence from the political sphere.
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 | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".