MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158441135 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v1n4p13

Adversary System Experiment in Continental Europe: Several Lessons from the Italian Experience

2008· article· en· W2158441135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Changsheng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemAdversaryConstitutionLegislatureIdeal (ethics)Political scienceDemocracyLawDemocratic systemOrder (exchange)Law and economicsComputer securitySociologyComputer scienceBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to promote efficiency and realize democracy ideal, Italy transplanted adversary system in 1988. Because of rampancy of organized crimes and compulsory prosecution system and material truth ideal, reformer’s effort was nibbled away by constitutional court of Italy. In 1999, the legislature of Italy amended Article 111 in Constitution which formed the constitutional basis of adversary system. Until now the reformers win. The Italian experience tells us: transplant of adversarial system is not only trial structure reform but reform of whole criminal procedure; in the course of internalizing the new system, a difficult repeated testing is the only way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207