The Plight and Solution Concerning Hearing and Adopting Lawyer's Defense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The revised Criminal Procedure Law strengthens the participation of defense lawyer in criminal proceedings, clarifies that during the stages of investigation, arrest, before conclusion of investigation, prosecution, pretrial conference, trial and death penalty review defense lawyer’s views should be heard in order to protect human rights, avoiding making wrong judgments and build an equal criminal procedural structure of prosecution and defense. For the phenomena that formality has been gone through in listening to defense lawyer’s views and it is difficult to adopt lawyer’s rational defense in judicial practice, public security officers and judicial officers should change the idea of “underestimating defense”, give defense lawyer the right to the information, pay equal attention to lawyer’s substantive defense and procedural defense, achieve reasoning in judgment documents, give clear responses to defense opinions, establish appropriate support mechanisms to provide protection for defense lawyer to express opinions.
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 | 0.091 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.054 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".