MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157696246 · doi:10.26577/japj.2021.v97.i1.08

Singapore’s judicial system (experience in the 2020 pandemic)

2021· article· en· W3157696246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.S. Slabospitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of actual problems of jurisprudence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceLawOpenness to experiencePublic relationsSociologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The task of constantly improving the efficiency of justice continues to be relevant due to its versatility and the growing demand of society. In order to continue this discussion, the article analyzes the judicial system of Singapore through the prism of its judicial system and judicial proceedings. The purpose of the work is to analyze the practical solutions of the studied justice, to highlight the positive and negative experience. The scientific and practical significance of the study lies in the fact that there is a positive practice of increasing the level of accessibility and openness of justice. As a result, it seems possible to implement the norms of foreign law due to the proximity of the emerging needs of judicial systems, both in Russia and in Kazakhstan. Methodological basis: formal legal method, synchronous and diachronic methods, as well as general scientific methods of cognition. A brief overview of the Singapore justice system, including the experience of implementing electronic technologies in this system, is given. The author shows that the introduction of these technologies and reasonable deterimental some elements of the trial allows to reduce the bureaucratic and material costs, as well as more efficiently and safely in a pandemic 2020 use human resources of the court and other persons involved in the case. Keywords: electronic court, automation of legal proceedings, accessibility of justice, internet. References: [1] Alenov M.A., Implementation of e-justice in Kazakhstan: regulatory framework and prospects // KAZGUU University. – Astana: Law and State, 2013. No. 3 (60). S. 71-73. [2] Cornie Ng. Integrated Electronic Litigation System (iELS) for the Singapore Ludiciary. URL: http: // mstreamlegal.com/ uploads / upload_ legal_ research_ center / lntegrated% 20Litigation% 20system.pdf. [3] Zhuikov V., Borisova E., Golovko L., Bonner A., Yarkov V., Afanasyev S., Pashin S., Patsatsiya M., Tai Yu., Smolnikov D. Reform of the judicial system in Russia: a new stage // Zakon. – M .: Zakon, 2016, No. 11 S. 20-34. [4] Zorkin V.D. The letter and spirit of the Constitution // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – M .: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2018. No. 7689 (226) // SPS ConsultantPlus. [5] In the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore Registrar’s Circular No. 3 of 2020 (Mar. 27, 2020) (Supreme Court Circular), https://perma.cc/K5CE-9YW4. [6] Legislation, CRT, https://perma.cc/2XMY-P6D8. [7] Malik, Walled Haider. Judiciary-Led Reforms in Singapore: framework, strategies and lessons. The World Bank, 2007. P. 53. [8] Media Release, Supreme Court, State Courts and Family Justice Courts to Hear Only Essential and Urgent Matters from 7 April to 4 May 2020 (Apr. 5, 2020), https://perma.cc/8WE5-RVQ4. [9] Message from Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, The Singapore Judiciary’s Response to COVID-19 (Mar. 26, 2020), https:// perma.cc/WA7T-DBHN. [10] Momotov V.V. Justice and expediency in the Anglo-American and continental-European legal systems: problem statement // Russian justice. 2017.No. 12.P. 16-24. [11] Lim Seng Siew. The Role of Service Bureaux in EFS. URL: http: // www.lawgazette.com.sg/ 2000-2 / Feb00-20.htm. [12] Reshetnyak V.I. Information technologies in the judicial system of Singapore // Information law. 2012. N 2.P. 21 – 24 // SPS ConsultantPlus. [13] Rogov I. I. Reforming according to the principle of the rule of law // Legal newspaper. 2016. No. 130. [14] Singapore Judicial System, Supreme Court of Singapore (last updated June 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/Z2SX- UFCL. [15] Tan Siong Thye. Senior District Judge Subordinate Courts of Singapore. Current reforms in Asean countries – lessons and experiences. The Singapore’s experience. URL: http: // www.aseanlawassociation.org/ 10GAdocs /. URL: http:// app.supremecourt.gov.sg. [16] Walker J., Watson G.D. New Technologies and the Civil Litigation Process. Common Law General Report. Osgoode Hall Law School York University, Toronto (Canada) http: // research.osgoode.yorku.ca/ iapl2007. [17] Wong Peck. eJustice-Transforming The Justice System. URL: http:// www.aija.org.au/ Law&Tech%2008/ Papers/. [18] Woolf H.K. Access to justice – Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. London, 1996 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1632182.Access_to_Justice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of actual problems of jurisprudenceSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207