Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aimed at examining definition of document and record in the law of evidence in different jurisdictions. This is due to the fact that the meaning of document and record as regards to their uses in legal matters has remained contentious in different jurisdictions. The paper has made a comparative analysis of definition of document with the aim of coming with the definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the further development of technology. Moreover, the study aimed at discussing the application of document in the court proceedings. Design/Methodology This paper has used descriptive study design. Empirical comparative analysis method has been employed by analysing definition of document as enshrined in different legislations of different countries and their application in court proceedings. The surveyed countries include Tanzania, Canada, US and Australia. The criteria for selection of countries involved in this study were based on convenience and availability of information needed. This study employed empirical juridical approach. Different court decision were obtained and examined. With the use of this study design, the paper has been able to meet its objectives. In general, the study used both purposive (probability) and judgement (non probability\) sampling design technique Findings This paper has found that there is a need of having a comprehensive definition of document and record that accommodates even further technological development. This reduces unnecessary amendments in the future. It was found vital to retain the dichotomy between public and private documents as regards to their admissibility to the court proceedings. It was further observed that the business documents be admissible in the same way as are public documents but their admissibility must be compounded by procedural guidance. Original/Value This study is important as it alerts the government on the need of having extensive and wide definitions of document that will be comprehensive and future orientated. Through this study, the government will observe the importance of treating the public document and private document differently in judicial proceedings. Finally, it is expected that, this study can be used by other countries to modify their internal legislations as regard to legal definition of document and record and their admissibility in legal proceedings respectively..
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 | 0.028 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".