Resolution to Conflict of Competency of Evidence: The Analysis Based on Legal Culture and Litigant system/RÉSOLUTION DES CONFLITS DE COMPÉTENCE DE LA PREUVE: L'ANALYSE FONDÉE SUR LA CULTURE JURIDIQUE ET LE SYSTÈME JUSTICIABLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competency of evidence is a qualification for evidence materials to be used as evidence in the procedure. Due to different legal culture, litigant mode and litigant system, there are differences concerning competency of evidence between continental genealogy of law and Anglo-American genealogy of law, which block the globalization of competency of evidence. So，the solution to conflict of competency of evidence depends on the conflict rule, the making of conflict rule should consider fully the purpose which the court desired in one case，the role of competency of evidence rule in the procedure and principle of conflict law. Key words: Competency of Evidence; Legal Culture; Litigant Mode; Litigant System; Conflict Rule Resume: La competence de la preuve est une qualification des materiels de preuves pouvant etre utilises comme preuve dans la procedure. Selon de differentes cultures juridiques, de differents modes et systemes justiciables, il existe des differences concernant la competence de la preuve entre la genealogie du droit continental et la genealogie du droit anglo-americaine, qui bloquent la mondialisation de la competence de la preuve. La solution de conflit de competence de la preuve repose donc sur la regle de conflit. La prise de regle de conflit devrait prendre en consideration de maniere approfondie l’objetif du tribunal dans un cas, le role de la regle de competence de la preuve dans la procedure et le principe du droit des conflits. Mots cles: Competence de la preuve; Culture juridique; Mode justiciable; Systeme justiciable; Regle de conflit
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".