The importance of being heard Stories of unrepresented litigants in small claims cases and private family proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e article explores narrativisation practices in small claims cases andprivate family proceedings, focusing predominantly on cases where at least oneof the parties is not represented by a lawyer. By drawing on the data collectedduring court observations and analysed using the ethnography of communicationas the main methodological framework, the study identifies narrative genresacross different stages of legal proceedings and illustrates communication barriersexperienced by lay court users. The discussion focuses on how formalised narrativegenres and the staggered presentation of narratives impact the degree to whichcourt users can use their voice. The article also links the notion of voice projectionto procedural justice and suggests that the main narratives should be elicitedsooner as part of an open narrative strategy to ensure the court users’ voices areheard by the judiciary in the initial stages of the proceedings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".