Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights in UK Law, has made the principle of free speech a positive right. But what is the law of freedom of expression and privacy and how does it affect the media? This new edition of Media Law and Human Rights provides practical coverage of the impact of human rights principles in media law. Providing a comprehensive guide to the Strasbourg case law as it affects the media, this book also examines how the UK courts have grappled with the concepts of privacy and freedom of expression as developed by the European Court. It considers the potential for further influence and looks at the special provisions in the structure of the Human Rights Act and how, if the UK courts still do not provide a remedy, a case can be taken to Strasbourg. This new edition offers comprehensive and up to date coverage of the all the important English case law and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that have occurred since the publication of the first edition, including key cases on libel, such as Steel and Morris v UK (McLibel), privacy such as Douglas v Hello, Campbell v MGM Ltd and Mosley v News Group Ltd and political advertising such as R(Animal Defenders) v Secretary of State for Culture. This edition also covers major developments outside the UK and Europe including decisions of the US, and Canadian Supreme Courts. This title particularly investigates the issues concerning Article 10 as regards its guarantee of freedom of expression. The right is not absolute, but judgements of the European Court of Human Rights have illustrated how valuable the Convention has been in maintaining freedom of expression. The Contempt of Court Act, rights of appeal against reporting restrictions, and the new approach to privilege in libel have all been the product of Article 10. The authors also consider hhow the courts have responded to the Human Rights Act, in particular the way in which the interrelationship between the right to respect for privacy and freedom of expression. Barristers and solicitors who specialise in media law and who need to understand the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act will find this an essential purchase.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 it