Il Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: common law e varianti locali nel Commonwealth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a number of different legal systems have come under the influence of the common law, these differ in socio-cultural terms. Within the common law world the initial circulation of the model emanating from England and Wales has evolved through a process of bilateral interaction, in which the jurisprudence of the Privy Council has been at the same time instrumental and an expression, influencing cases in countries such as New Zealand, Canada, Australia, India and Hong Kong. The diffusion of the substantially uniform common law in reciprocal directions among the legal systems with Anglo-Saxon origins is shown by the frequent references made by the courts in England and Wales to the decisions of the courts of the Commonwealth as ‘authorities’. This lack of distinction between national and Commonwealth jurisprudence suggests a trend towards uniformity. It is only in the last few decades, that the Privy Council has become familiar with the ‘localization’ of the common law, arising from the interpretation of the law provided by local judges ‘in so far as they reflect the advantage which those judges enjoy of familiarity with prevailing local conditions, this with the proviso that the courts have used that advantage’.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".