University of Leicester Student Law Review 11, vol. 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The articles in this journal were carefully selected from a pool of submissions, and represent some valuable insights into medical consent, compensation culture, racial inequalities in the English Criminal Justice system, political inequalities in the Canadian Vaccine Passport policies during COVID-19, and more. Furthermore, we have reserved a special portion of the Review for Competition-Winning Essays written by Leicester Law School's students, to celebrate their achievements and academic excellence. Table of Contents The Implications of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] on Standards of Care, Patient Autonomy and Informed Consent Esinam Ayesu-Attah Page 1 - 4 Private Versus Public Policing and the Commodification of Social Control Sophia D’Souza Page 5-12 Compensation Culture in the Tort of Negligence: Myth or Reality? Jia Xi Wong Page 13-18 Cycle of Mistrust: A Critical Examination of Government Race Reports as a contributor to cyclical mistrust amongst BAME communities towards the English Criminal Justice System Camilia Amouzegar Page 19-23 The Right to Bodily Autonomy under Section 7 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Rebecca Bocchinfuso Page 24-27 Freedom of Conscience during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of Ontario’s Vaccine Passport Policy David Fanni Page 28-39 The Singapore and New York Conventions on International Mediation and Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis Jolanta Matejaszek Page 40-46 Competition-Winning Essays Why the Right to Vote should be Extended to all Prisoners under New Laws Sarah Mercat Winner of the ELSA Nottingham x University of Leicester Student Law Review x University of Leicester Law Society Essay Competition (2021) Page 47-50 Daly and Proportionality: the Expedition to a more Rights-Protective Standard of Review Mohamed Rashwan Winner of the Stefan Cross QC Award (2021) Page 51-54
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.079 |
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".