A Rational Thinking of the People’s Mediation System of China
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it