MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302430853 · doi:10.36745/ijca.463

Book Review: Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts

2022· article· en· W4302430853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Markus Zimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Court Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)PoliticsLawPublic opinionPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book, Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts, is an edited anthology of articles describing the historical development of various models of citizen participation in adjudicative processes in a variety of countries. They include Argentina, Japan, South Korea, Spain, England/Wales, Germany, Canada, Norway, France, Belgium, Russia, and Georgia. Some reference experimentation with varying ratios of law and lay judges and how public opinion affected political decisions on how to structure civic participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.012

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Court AdministrationSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207