MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493063613 · doi:10.3968/4433

The Roles of Local Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Process of Rule by Law in China

2014· article· en· W1493063613 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Changcheng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal procedureLawChinaLocal governmentProcess (computing)Unitary stateRule of lawCriminal justicePolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Set (abstract data type)Law and economicsBusinessSociologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although China has a unitary tradition, there exist a large number of local rules in criminal procedure. Based on more than one thousands of copies of local rules of criminal procedure and relevant investigations, the article analysis the important functions of local rules of criminal procedure in the process of rule of law in China. In order to refine laws and regulations and guide pilot reforms, judicial offices draw up local rules of criminal procedure.These local rules also build mechanisms of coordinations between judicial offices and judicial internal offices and government departments,and local rules regulate the administration of justice system of judicial personals and business.In the aspect of protection of rights, local rules of criminal in China succeed in strengthen the rights of defendant and counsel and victim and prisoners.In addition, some controversies against local rules of criminal procedure in China are discussed. Finally,the article offer some suggestions to improve the justify of local rules in criminal procedure in China,such as admitting the power of local judicial offices to make rules and standardizing the procedure of formulating rules,and it’s necessary to set a bottom line and effective relieving courses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207