The Right of Access to ‘Reliable’ Information Under Article 10 echr: From Meagre Beginnings to New Frontiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recognition of the right of access to information under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been marked by fits and starts. This article charts three phases in the jurisprudence – from outright denial (Phase One), through hesitant recognition (Phase Two), to recognition of a limited right in specified circumstances (Phase Three). The Court’s recent judgment in Association Burestop 55 and Others v France may mark a new frontier (or ‘Fourth Phase’), as the Court recognised for the first time that the right necessarily comprises a qualitative aspect – that is, it requires that the information disclosed is sincere, accurate, sufficient, and reliable. This could have important ramifications for the quality of the information environment in the current ‘post-truth’ era. However, several conceptual challenges, practical limitations, and lingering uncertainties will need to be addressed for the promise of the judgment to be fully realised.
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 | 0.045 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".