Leicester Student Law Review Vol. 12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Leicester Student Law Review is an academic journal which has been published in Leicester, United Kingdom for the last eight years to allow students to contribute to the field of legal academic writing. Over the years, the Law Review has allowed students to participate in legal discourse on a variety of topics, challenging the status quo. I am extremely pleased to present this year's journal to the public. The articles contained were carefully selected for the insight that they provide on a variety of topics. This year's journal includes papers on the lack diversity in the judiciary, gender inequality, ongoing challenges in the European Union, failings of the criminal justice system and medically assisted suicide in Canada. All of the papers are written by current students of law at the University of Leicester. I am extremely grateful to our talented team of editors who worked tirelessly to ensure that the papers presented to you are of the highest quality. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to our Managing Editor, Rachel Hodgett, who helped lead with strength and grace. For every challenge the Law Review faced, Rachel always remained focused on finding solutions and a way forward. I would also like to thank former Editor-in-Chief, Alanis Ortiz, for helping to provide guidance and mentorship throughout the process. Lastly, I'd like to thank Maryam Ahmad, Hinda Abdi, Adrianna Strzepka and Reda Hussain for all their work behind the scenes. While we have tried our hardest to present a journal of the highest quality, please forgive any errors in grammar or in judgment made along the way. Angel Panag Editor-in-Chief, 2022-2023
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.959 | 0.999 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".