MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Rational Thinking of the People’s Mediation System of China

2012· article· en· W2127043129 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yi Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationPolitical scienceSocial harmonyChinaHumanitiesHarmony (color)Alternative dispute resolutionLawSociologyPhilosophyArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People’s Mediation is a kind of dispute resolution mechanism with Chinese characteristics. In 2011, People’s Mediation Law of the People’s Republic of China has came into force. This law is formulated to solve disputes among people in a timely manner, to maintain social harmony and stability, to reduce litigation cost and to relieve the burden of involved parties and so on. However, there are various kinds of defects in system designs and legal practices, and it still needs efforts with rational thinking to improve and complement the legal system. Key words : The People’s Mediation; Dispute resolution; Judicial confi rmation Resume La mediation populaire est une sorte de mecanisme de reglement des differends avec des caracteristiques chinoises. En 2011, la loi de mediation populaire de la Republique populaire de Chine a entre en vigueur. Cette loi est formulee pour resoudre les differends entre les personnes en temps opportun, afi n de maintenir l’harmonie sociale et la stabilite, a reduire les couts des litiges et a alleger le fardeau des parties concernees et ainsi de suite. Cependant, il existe differents types de defauts de conception des systemes et pratiques juridiques, et il faut encore des efforts avec la pensee rationnelle en vue d’ameliorer et de completer le systeme juridique. Mots cles : Mediation du Peuple; Resolution des disputes; Confi rmation judiciaire

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicDispute Resolution and Class ActionsFrench-language works237,207