Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The commitments in criminal law mean that a victim commits others to infringing on his/her legal interests, which includes three elements of promisor, commitment behavior, and promisee, and every single aspect has certain conditional requirements. The theory of criminal law in continental law system divides commitment into two categories: the commitment of constitutive requirement elimination and the commitment of illegality elimination. Since there is no single illegality judgement in China’s crime constitution system, the commitment of illegality elimination is excluded its criminality through the fact that the behavior doesn’t conform to crime constitution. The above classification is thereby meaningless in China; it should be uniformly called the commitment of exclusion of criminal cause. In addition, some commitments can not exclude behavior criminality but can mitigate criminal responsibility, called the commitment of mitigated criminal responsibility; there are some other commitments can not be excluded criminality because of the clear deification in the law or called invalids commitments, including the invalid commitment of same crime constitution and the invalid commitment of different crime constitution. Key words: Commitment; Illegality; Legal interest; Constitutive requirements; EliminationResume: Les engagements en droit penal signifie que la victime engage les autres a porter atteinte a ses interets juridiques, qui comprend trois elements du promettant, le comportement engage et promesse, et chaque aspect a certaines exigences conditionnelle. La theorie du droit penal dans le systeme de droit continental se divise en deux categories d'engagement: l'engagement de l’exigence constitutive de l'elimination et l'engagement de l'elimination illegal. Comme il n'y a pas de seule illegalite de jugement du crime de la constitution en Chine, l'engagement de l'elimination de l'illegalite est exclu de son incrimination par le fait que le comportement n'est pas conforme a la constitution de la criminalite. Le classement ci-dessus est donc denuee de sens en Chine, elle doit etre uniformement appele l'engagement de l'exclusion de la cause penale. En outre, certains engagements ne peuvent pas etre exclure le comportement de la criminalite, mais ils peuvent attenuer la responsabilite penale, appeles l'engagement de la responsabilite penale attenuee, il y a certains autres engagements ne peut etre exclu de criminalite, car la clarte de la deification dans la loi ou les invalides engagements, y compris les engagement invalides de la constitution de la meme crime et l'engagement invalide de constitution crime different. Mots cles: Engagement; L'illegalite; Les interets juridiques; Les exigences constitutive; Et l'elimination
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".