MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490662287

민영교도소의 허용성과 한계

2003· article· ko· W1490662287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
한상훈

Bibliographic record

VenueKOREAN CRIMINOLOGICAL REVIEW · 2003
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonLawPolitical scienceAdministration (probate law)Punishment (psychology)State (computer science)Government (linguistics)Private lawPublic lawPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private prisons can be found in USA, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. While there are roughly 120,000 prisoners in private prisons around the world, mostly in USA, the notion of private prison is in Korea very unfamiliar. This will be changed. Section 4-2 of the Criminal Adminstration Act and the Act on Construction and Administration of Private Prisons, which takes force on July 1 2001, permit private prisons. On 4th Feb. 2003 Ministry of Justice made a consignment contract with the Agape Foundation, which was funded by Federation of Korean Churches. The Agape Foundation will begin to build a private prison late this year in order to accomodate about 500 prisoners by 2005. This situation raises some legal questions. Although the National Assembly passed Acts to allow private prisons, there remains constitutional review. From the point of civil law tradition, the private administration of punishment might violate the principle of legal state, some argue. But in my view, the private prison itself does not breach the due process of law, division of state powers, right to legal judge, freedom of religion, nor the principle of legal state, so long as they are consented by the government and afford better living condition than that of state prisons. On the contrary, introduction of private prisons can be a breakthrough to improve living conditions in state prisons and to decrease a repeat crime rate. For this purpose, some must be recommended. First, more information on the administration of punishment must be disclosed to the public. Until now most data about prison is kept secret, so that 'civil control' on state prisons has been almost impossible. Upon the opportunity of a new private prison, this secret practice must be changed. Second, when administration of prison is consigned to private sector, superintendence and participation of civil experts regarding private prison as well as state prison must be considered. Third, the new private prison will be run by Christian foundation. the private prison act and Ministry of Justice want the private prison run 'religious-neutrally'. But in my view, a religious programs can reduce repeat crime and facilitate social integration. To avoid a violation of freedom of religion and the separation of state and religion, only volunteers shall be delivered to private prisons and same chances to private prison must be given to other religions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.007

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.099 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKOREAN CRIMINOLOGICAL REVIEWSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207