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
This introductory Chapter introduces readers to the way in which technological developments, often accompanied by sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence (AI), are reshaping the judicial role. The shifts in the judicial function in the context of 2020 pandemic concerns and the rapid move to digital service delivery are specifically considered. A distinction is made between three types of technological reform that may reshape the judicial role and justice systems (categorised as supportive, replacement and disruptive), noting that some technological reforms may have fewer impacts than others. The concept of Judge AI is discussed in the context of the continuous pace of technological change. Consideration is also given to judicial commentary from Australia, the United States, Singapore, Canada and the United Kingdom consider regarding the impact of technological change on the judicial function. Finally, there is a brief discussion about how technology has been deployed in a bid to address access to justice (which is discussed in more detail in Chapter Six).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it