On the Joint Omission Principal SUR LE PRINCIPE DE NÉGLIGENCE COLLECTIVE
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
There are three doctrines regarding the issue of the joint omission principal in academia of overall negative, said a comprehensive, and limited say. And all of these three doctrines have their own advantages and deficiencies as well, and all of them, in general, are unable to explain criminal phenomenon. It can scientifically demonstrate the issue of joint omission principal only from the perspectives of dominated committed and obligation committed. Joint omission principal can only be tenable in the omission field of dominated committed; and joint principal won’t be tenable in the filed of obligation committed or the field combined with both dominated committed and obligation committed. Keywords: joint principal; dominated committed; Pflichtdelikt; omission; and the obligation to make Resume: Il y a trois doctrines sur la question de principe de negligence collective dans les universites. Et chacune de ces trois doctrines a leurs propres avantages et deficiences, et en general, elles sont tous incapables d'expliquer ce phenomene criminel. On peut demontrer scientifiquement la question de principe de negligence collective seulement du point de vue des domines et de l'obligation. Le principe de negligence collective ne peut etre tenable que dans le domaine de la negligence de domines, et il ne sera pas tenable dans le domaine de l'obligation ou dans le domaine qui associe a la fois les domines et l'obligation.Mots-cles: principe collectif; dominee; Pflichtdelikt; negligence, l'obligation de faire
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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