MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W116334345 · doi:10.29173/alr172

A Comparison of the Spanish and Canadian Law of Self-Defence

2010· article· en· W116334345 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Javier Valls Prieto, W Renke

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf defenseScope (computer science)Statutory lawLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceAggressionPsychologySociologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the rules for self-defence in Canada and Spain are compared and contrasted. We will offer an explanation for the recognition of self-defence, in its several forms; describe some formal similarities and differences between the two versions of the defence; and then compare and contrast the approaches of the defence under eight main themes — interests protected; threats to those interests; mistakes by the defender; time constraints on the defence; measuring conduct falling within the scope of statutory protection; the availability of the defence to a defender who provoked aggression; and the use of evidence that does not fully support the defence.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207