Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, English courts have construed section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the time for pleading a cause of action in mistake of law until a decision of a final court authoritatively resolves the point of law at issue. The Supreme Court in Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs held that this interpretation was illogical and erroneous. In construing section 32(1)(c), the focus of attention should not be on judicial decisions, but on the claimant's ability to discover that they had a worthwhile claim. Limitation begins to run once a reasonably diligent person in the position of the claimant could have known that there was a real possibility that a mistake of law had been made. This welcome reinterpretation obviates the former mischief of judicial developments of the law extending causes of action for an indefinite period of time.
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 | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".