The Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law (MDFAL) of 2002: A Weak Reed for Global Realization of the Right to Access Legal Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beginning of 2000 witnessed emergence of global campaigns for realization of the right to access legal information. The campaigns were initiated by activists of the Free Access to Law Movements (FALM). In order to make the campaigns more formal the FALM drafted the Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law (MDFAL) of 2002. Although the principles of the MDFAL of 2002 are good it suffers from a sort of ‘birth defect’ problems, one of which being the fact that the MDFAL of 2002 is not in the realm of international law. One can only assume that if the MDFAL of 2002 was in the realm of international law, realization of its principles would be more realistic than it is now. The aim of this article is to provide a critique of the MDFAL of 2002 which makes realization of the right to access legal information illusive. Keywords: Free Access to Legal Information, Legal information, Legal information institutes, Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/105-09 Publication date: January 31 st 2021
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".