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
This report is from a study of the suspended sentence power in Hong Kong undertaken by the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the request of the Law Society of Hong Kong (LSHK). Members of the LSHK’s Criminal Law and Procedure Committee have been concerned about the list of exceptions to the suspended sentence power. The purpose of this report is to inform members of that Committee of the background and law on the suspended sentence power and to aid their ongoing discussion of the topic with the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. The study focuses specifically on the exceptions to the power of the courts of Hong Kong to impose suspended sentences under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) (CPO). The study will consider arguments for maintaining, abolishing or reforming the list of excepted offences for which offenders cannot receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment regardless of circumstances. In doing so, the project will examine the nature of judicial power to order suspended sentences or their equivalent in the following jurisdictions: Australia (Victoria), New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, and the United Kingdom (UK). It will also provide the historical context in which Hong Kong introduced the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the rationale for excepting the offences listed in Schedule 3 of the CPO.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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