Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new edition of the only major text solely dedicated to the subject of the conflict of laws within the UK. It provides, in a single volume, the rules applying to the intra-UK resolution of questions of allocation of jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Procedural matters (including proof of the law of other parts of the UK), and the availability of a public policy objection intra-nationally within the UK, are also discussed. It captures the interplay between the conflict of laws and the UK’s atypical constitutional structure, both historically and in the present day. Alternative responses to dealing with intra-national conflicts (other than through private international law rules) are considered, such as the passing of national legislation to remove the underlying conflict or to remove the issue from the sphere of private international law, and the use of constitutional principles to replace or modify private international law rules. This is enhanced by a comparative analysis of the Canadian and Australian response to conflicts arising between provinces or states. It takes account of relevant international developments and internal constitutional changes since the first edition which impact on the resolution of intra-UK disputes, as well as new legislation, case law and scholarship.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".