Izdvajanje nezakonitih materijalnih dokaza u poredbenom kaznenom postupovnom pravu
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper discusses the standpoint of comparative law on the exclusionary rule in search and seizure. Research confirms that most European criminal procedures do not apply an automatic exclusionary rule on real evidence. The few countries that use automatic exclusion do not include a wide range of injuries and have many exceptions. Most states use a discretionary model and this approach is also used by the European Court of Human Rights and the international criminal courts. The American approach is not accepted in common-law countries, so neither the English, Canadian nor Australian criminal procedure uses the mandatory exclusion of illegal evidence. The American model was rejected after being introduced in criminal procedure in New Zealand and Belgium. In post-communist countries, there are no unique trends in this field. The acceptance of the American influence is evident in some provisions of the Croatian system which uses automatic exclusion with a wider scope of exclusion than the original American exclusionary rule.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it