The Litigation of Cases Involving Illegal Acts: Analysis Based on Baxian Archives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The charging documents of some cases in Baxian Archives could reflect the litigants’ illegal acts of selling wives, gambling, as well as fighting and killing. Since the litigation could reveal their illegal acts, why the litigants actively initiate legal proceedings? Are not they afraid to be penalized for these illegal acts? By analyzing the litigation purposes, judgement results, as well as the accepting system of these cases, it could reach some conclusions: the protection for property rights is the dynamic to prompt the litigants to conduct prosecutions and accept the risk of being penalized. The authorities adopt the principle of setting disputes while ignoring illegal acts exposed by the documents to decide cases, the litigants accordingly do not have to worry about criminal penalty. In addition, there is exaggeration and falsity in the statements about gambling and injuring. The essence of this pattern statement of judicial documents is to respond to the cases accepting system of authority autonomy. It is a strategy to get admission ticket for accepting cases so as to safeguard the rights and interests.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".