MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128677994 · doi:10.26180/4657540.v1

Open' justice, the courts and the media

2017· dissertation· W7128677994 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon Rodrick

Bibliographic record

VenueMonash University · 2017
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremisePrincipal (computer security)Statutory lawWork (physics)Common lawKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis consists of a book chapter and a series of published and unpublished articles that deal with open justice, the courts and the media, framed by an introduction and a conclusion. The thesis begins with an introduction which identifies its aims and provides an overview of the issues that are addressed therein. It explains that it proceeds on the premise that open justice, while of seminal importance to our legal system, is not an inflexible rule but a malleable principle. This is critical, because it is this tractability which enables courts to assign differing strengths to the principle, depending on the context, and to subjugate it, on appropriate occasions, to other valued principles that pull in an opposite direction. Chapter one describes the nature of the principle, outlines its aims, examines its primary applications and recounts the principal common law and statutory exceptions. Considerable time is devoted to explaining how the principle and the exceptions impact on the work of the media. It also considers some of the practical difficulties that media organisations experience when courts make suppression orders. Chapter two investigates the nature of the relationship between the courts and the media, and the media and the public, and considers the extent to which media reporting of the work of the courts furthers the aims of open justice. It suggests that these relationships are not always conducive to achieving the aims of open justice. Accordingly, it argues that courts should assume greater responsibility for cultivating a more direct relationship with the public in an attempt to ensure that their work is better understood. Chapters three, four and five consider the extent to which the principle of open justice does, and should, operate in three disparate contexts. Chapter three compares the response of Australian and. Canadian courts when asked to make orders suppressing publication in the mass media of evidence given in open court concerning particular police methods used to solve cold cases and the identities of undercover police officers involved. Chapter four attempts to formulate an appropriate response to the issue of child identification in criminal contexts. It explores the policy considerations for and against identifying child victims and offenders, concludes that the arguments in favour of suppressing a child's identity generally outweigh the arguments in favour of revealing a child's identity and critically examines the options for a national standard. Chapter five considers the extent to which the media should be able to report judicial proceedings in which Victorian courts are asked to make supervision or detention orders in respect of sex offenders who have completed their custodial sentence, but who are regarded as posing an unacceptable risk of re-offending. It concludes that insufficient regard has been paid to the principle of open justice in this context. A conclusion addresses some of the opportunities and challenges that the principle of open justice is currently facing, or is likely to face in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0210.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonash UniversitySame topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207