The Nightingale Court Experiment: Lessons for Access to Justice in a Post-Pandemic World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature is yet to consider the contribution of Nightingale Courts to access to justice in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nightingale Courts are courts that have been set up in repurposed buildings, such as town halls, hotels, and theatres, to facilitate socially distanced trials and hearings. I fill this gap by asking: to what extent have Nightingale Courts addressed access to justice concerns during the pandemic, and what lessons do Nightingale Courts hold for access to justice across jurisdictions and in the future? I argue that though costly and complex, Nightingale Courts have helped to prevent a further worsening of delay during the pandemic. Then, I explore the lessons of the Nightingale Court experiment for access to justice across jurisdictions and in a post-pandemic world. I consider Nightingale Courts as an experiment for legal architecture, informal justice, and adaptation and resilience. I conclude that Nightingale Courts have maintained and preserved access to the legal system during a time of crisis and thereby contributed to the resilience of the system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".