Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1964 the House of Lords delivered a unanimous judgement, the point of which they said, was to clear up an ‘anomaly’ in the law. ‘Exemplary damages’ were the ‘anomaly’ of the law to which the House had referred. Amazing and surprisingly narrow limits were placed on the scope of the doctrine of exemplary damages. Such limits as had not been witnessed previously in any court throughout the common law world. As a result two centuries of authorities were suddenly questionable. Several cases were distinguished. Despite the authority of a unanimous House of Lords the case received devastating criticism throughout the common law world. To this day no other jurisdiction has accepted the decision of Rookes V Barnard. The onslaught of this criticism was led by the Australian High Court and allowed by the Board of the Privy Council in the case of Uren V Fairfax. Such rejection was soon followed by the courts of New Zealand, Canada, Tasmania and Ireland. Should the narrow doctrine of the House of Lords, or the wider doctrine of the Australian High Court be preferred?
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.008 |
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".