Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 1827 work Rationale of Judicial Evidence, \nJeremy Bentham famously argued against \nexclusionary rules such as hearsay, preferring a \npolicy of “universal admissibility” unless the declarant \nis easily available. Bentham’s claim that all \nrelevant evidence should be considered with appropriate \ninstructions to fact finders has been particularly \ninfluential among judges, culminating in \nthe “principled approach” to hearsay in Canada articulated \nin R. v. Khelawon. Furthermore, many \nscholars attack Bentham’s argument only for ignoring \nthe realities of juror bias, admitting universal \nadmissibility would be the best policy for an \nideal jury. This article uses the theory of epistemic \ncontextualism to justify the exclusion of otherwise \nrelevant evidence, and even reliable hearsay, on \nthe basis of preventing shifts in the epistemic context. \nEpistemic contextualism holds that the justification \nstandards of knowledge attributions \nchange according to the contexts in which the attributions \nare made. Hearsay and other kinds of \ninformation the assessment of which rely upon fact \nfinders’ more common epistemic capabilities push \nthe epistemic context of the trial toward one of \nmore relaxed epistemic standards. The exclusion of \nhearsay helps to maintain a relatively high standards \ncontext hitched to the standard of proof for \nthe case and to prevent shifts that threaten to try \ndefendants with inconsistent standards.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it