Adolescence, Autonomy and Harry Potter: The Child as Decision-Maker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper integrates the worlds of Harry Potter and civil liability, in the context of exploring the ways in which the integrity of young people - their sense of self - deserves both respect and protection. By intertwining the two realms, each structured by its particular norms and narratives, the exploration emphasises the intricate connections among personal vulnerability, dignity and autonomy. Notions central to an understanding of the individual in the private law of civil liability, these aspects of the individual are just as firmly situated in Harry Potter. Thus, as the books illustrate how people, institutions and experiences shape the period that leads from childhood to adulthood, they reveal a complex yet necessary coexistence of dependence and self-reliance. So too, when the law deals with decision-making by young people, the difficulties with assuming or requiring autonomy against a backdrop of adolescence are stark. Often hidden from view in legal, as opposed to literary, narrative, the necessary tension between individual vulnerability and independence - given contour by the relationships in which the young person participates - is brought to light by bringing together the stories of Harry Potter with those of adolescent decision-making in law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".