Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the crisis in Australia caused by the increasingly eccentric and uncompromising opinions of Mr Justice Benjamin Boothby reached its climax in the first half of the 1860s, Sir Frederic Rogers, the permanent head of the Colonial Office, drafted the Bill for what was to become the epoch-making Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp.) in collaboration with the Law Officers of the Crown. However, he also had a broader project in mind. Rogers commissioned a barrister friend, Thomas Haddan, to draft a Bill which approached, although it did not quite reach the heights of a code of colonial constitutional law, to Rogers’ own agenda. The Colonial Government Bill 1864 has lain unseen in the files of the Colonial Office since its completion, for the change of Colonial Secretary in April 1864 seems to have doomed the project—that, and perhaps also the first stirrings of something completely new in what is now Canada. The Bill would have introduced a number of interesting novelties in colonial constitutional law. Most notably, it would have entirely abolished judicial review of colonial legislation—certainly an answer to Boothby J.’s abuse of that judicial power, but a stance that might have been adopted also in the Empire’s federal dominions that were about to arise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.007 |
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".