English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Fact finders assess the relative plausibility of stories presented by comparing them to narratives which have gained general acceptance, some of which are hegemonic narratives. In doing so, they run the risk of choosing a narrative that does not accurately represent the historic truth of events in suit, as a narrative with which to compare the stories offered by parties. Once fact finders choose an inappropriate narrative, they may commit the narrative fallacy and choose to grant increased weight to evidence that coheres with the inappropriate narrative, and to disregard evidence that does not, rather than discard the narrative when subsequent evidence tends to show that it is inappropriate.  Admission of prejudicial evidence may trigger the use of inappropriate narratives that are hegemonic, or at least prejudicial, leading to inaccurate fact finding. Seen in that light, despite arguments to the contrary made by Robert Burns and by Ronald Allen, further relaxation of admissibility rules towards a "free proof" system would be undesirable.

Pass These Sirens By: Further Thoughts on Narrative and Admissibility Rules