Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prospective tenants in England are often asked to put down a holding deposit as a condition of signing a tenancy agreement. A holding deposit is an up-front payment given to the landlord or the landlord’s agent to place a “hold” on the property from being rented to anyone else while the applicant’s references are checked. It is paid after the key terms of the tenancy (for example, the rent amount and move-in date) have been agreed. Its purpose is to give both parties peace-of-mind that the applicant is “locked in” to renting the property.\nIn a previous contribution to the Landlord and Tenant Review, I described how the payment of a holding deposit is improperly used by some landlords as leverage for “renegotiating” the terms of the tenancy prior to handing over the keys. The inspiration for that article came from my own experience as a tenant and from discussions with fellow lawyers living in London. Last year, I put my rent where my mouth was: I sued my former landlord. For the benefit of tenants and landlords who find themselves in a similar predicament, I offer some brief reflections on my experience.
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 | 0.046 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".