Who guards the guardians? Recent developments concerning the jurisdiction and accountability of ombudsmen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in 1980, Kevin Cho said “Australia rivals Canada in its passion for Ombudsman”, there being at that time executive ombudsmen (or Parliamentary Commissioners) in each of the States, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. Since that time, ombudsmen in Australia have “gone forth and multiplied”. The past decade or so has witnessed the expansion of the ombudsman concept into the private sector, with the creation of industry ombudsmen schemes at both national and State levels to handle complaints about privatized essential services, as well as complaints about industries which were never part of the public sector. The ombudsman model has also been chosen to deal with single-issue complaints within a particular industry, a recent example being the proposed Music Industry Ombudsman which w ill have jurisdiction over censorship, but not other aspects of the music industry...
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 | 0.054 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".