Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tenant Fees Bill is set to be passed into law in England. The Bill does three things: it bans most tenant fees in the residential tenancy market; it improves protection of holding deposits paid by tenancy applicants; and it provides for public and private enforcement mechanisms. Regrettably, however, the Bill neglects basic principles of English contract and agency law. Instead, the drafting builds upon contemporary letting practices and seeks to correct its worst features. As a result, the Bill problematically permits letting agents to charge tenants certain fees for services that in law are provided to their principal: the landlord. It also regulates the treatment of holding deposits without addressing their nature in English common law. Finally, the Bill prescribes enforcement recourse to independent agencies and tribunals that are already overburdened and under-resourced. Despite these problems, the Bill improves on present letting law and will bring a welcome rebalancing of rights and obligations in the tenancy market.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".