MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Competency to Stand Trial

2010· book· en· W1539403449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemDignityLawCriminal trialFair trialPsychologyPolitical scienceCriminologyHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Defendants can be found incompetent to stand trial, under provisions in criminal law, if they are unable to understand their legal circumstances and participate adequately in their defense. If they are found incompetent, further judicial proceedings are suspended until their competency has been restored. The purposes behind this procedure are to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial and to preserve the dignity of the adversarial process (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slogobin, 2007). The competency standard that is currently recognized by the courts was established in Dusky v. United States (362 U.S. 402, 1960), which holds that defendants must be able to consult with an attorney and have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.009

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.327 · 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