Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Jury instructions, also called jury charges, jury directions, or simply instructions, charges, or directions, are the legal guidelines provided by judges to jurors at trial, civil and criminal, usually at the conclusion of all evidence. Their function is to instruct juries in how to reach decisions or findings of fact based upon the evidence presented. Jury trials are distinguished from bench trials, in which judges make all decisions. Jurors are the triers of fact in jury trials, and their decisions must be based on the evidence presented at trial by following the law that is provided in the instructions. Thus the communicative effectiveness of the instructions is crucial to a fair trial. Jury trials are not used in all countries today, but they are used, in both civil and criminal cases, in most adversarial or common law jurisdictions: Britain (though not Scotland), Continental Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as a few other countries (those influenced by colonialism). Jurors must make decisions by deciding which witnesses are believable, which ones appear to be telling the truth, and how much weight to give to testimony—all in the context of the legal rules that specify exactly how to apply the law to the evidence. Jurors make decisions about blame and guilt, and degrees of blame and guilt, based on the evidence that they have heard and the instructions that they have received. Because the instructions must explain relevant law, they must contain some legal language. Legal language has long been recognized as difficult for nonlawyers (Mellinkoff, 1963; Steele & Thornburg, 1988; Tiersma, 1999), and jury instructions can present special difficulties because of their linguistic complexity and length, sometimes hundreds of pages. They may contain definitions of special legal terms like mens rea (criminal intent) and res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”). Comprehension difficulties faced by jurors are well documented, particularly in the USA, where as early as 1979 (Charrow & Charrow), empirical research demonstrated that long, complex sentences and certain grammatical structures as well as specialized terms created severe difficulties for jurors. Some reform efforts have succeeded in improving comprehensibility, but there is consensus among linguists and other social scientists, as well as many judges and lawyers, that jury instructions used in most adversarial or common law jurisdictions need further improvement. This entry briefly describes the nature of jury instruction in the courtroom, traces the history of jury instructions and reform efforts, then illustrates comprehension problems and summarizes needed revisions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle