MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551700116

Feticide : creating a statutory crime in South African law

2013· article· en· W1551700116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Du Plessis, Georgia Alida

Bibliographic record

VenueStellenbosch Law Review = Stellenbosch Regstydskrif · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawJurisprudenceLawLegislatureAbortionPolitical scienceCommon lawPosition (finance)CriminologySociologyPregnancyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the South African case S v Mshumpa 2008 1 SACR 126 (E) the court considered a set of facts where a third party had been responsible for the death of an unborn during the 38th week of gestation. It is commonly referred to as a case of feticide. The court held that the common-law crime of murder did not include the unborn and it was the responsibility of the legislature to develop the common law. This article aims to investigate the development of a statutory crime of feticide for the protection of the unborn. Some arguments are given as to why the situation of the unborn is different in cases of feticide than in abortion cases. Furthermore, American, English and Canadian jurisprudence is researched in order to compare it with the South African position to assist the legislature in taking urgent action in furthering South African jurisprudence on feticide.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStellenbosch Law Review = Stellenbosch RegstydskrifSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207