Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key insight that I garnered from interviews with civil justice stakeholders as part of my empirical data collection was the relative lack of knowledge about class actions in England and Wales.For some, this was a result of the perceived neglect of civil procedure in English universities in contrast to places like Australia, Canada and the United States, where it is more foundational to legal education.Others took a more socio-cultural perspective, observing that even among academics, let alone the proverbial person on the street, much knowledge about class actions comes from popular media, whether television and film or the mainstream news, which has contributed to the impoverished understanding of the legal vehicle.Whichever the cause(s), a common refrain among stakeholders was that one of the major challenges for reform in the area is this fundamental lack of knowledge.One senior stakeholder went so far as to suggest that, at first instance, nothing would do more for collective access to justice than tackling this gap.It is my hope, then, that a book of this nature will be useful for those seeking to learn more about class actions and their benefits for access to justice.This approach aligns well with the growing recognition that 'access to justice' research needs to be more self-reflexive and incorporate its own central tenets: the research itself needs to be accessible.Too often this is ironically not the case.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".