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
<JATS1:p>This open access book explores the High Court’s powers under its inherent jurisdiction and wardship in relation to children and incapacitous and vulnerable adults.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>The book introduces the inherent jurisdiction and investigates its place in the modern law. Part 1 provides a comprehensive history of the inherent jurisdiction, before giving a detailed account of the core principles and procedure applicable today, and comparing the approaches taken in Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Part 2 considers the court’s use of its inherent jurisdiction in specific categories of case, including child abduction, medical decision-making about children, child protection, incapacitous and vulnerable adults.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Despite its ancient roots, the inherent jurisdiction is relied on by High Court judges on a daily basis, in both everyday and cutting-edge cases. This book argues that the court’s approach to some of these cases is justified, but that judges often make unnecessary and inappropriate use of the inherent jurisdiction.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Through its critical examination of the modern use of wardship and the inherent jurisdiction, the book is essential reading for practitioners and researchers working in this field.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>The ebook editions of this book are available open access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 licence on bloomsburycollections.com.</JATS1:p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it