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

Open' justice, the courts and the media

2017· dissertation· W7128677994 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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This thesis consists of a book chapter and a series of published and unpublished articles that deal with open justice, the courts and the media, framed by an introduction and a conclusion.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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.035
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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