An Investigation into the Rule of Action in the Penal System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>According to definite jurisprudential principles and rules, when a person acts against himself and accepts the incurrence of damage, he will be deprived of all or some part of the claim for compensation. The rule of action constitutes the basis of this lack of benefit in Islamic and Iran’s law, while the principles of consent and participation in the fault underlie it in the common law. Studying research studies conducted in relation to the rule of action in Iran and Britain’s law it could be argued that the rule of action is among the cases discussed in criminal law and on the issue of causality in punishment. On the other hand, in criminal proceedings, in Iranian and British legal systems, this issue has been mostly discussed regarding the aspects of imposing damage and calculation of costs thereof. Therefore, if someone is acting to the detriment of himself and is causing damage to himself, in addition to the issue of liability removal, in which the accused may be acquitted from his responsibility, there is no need for the accused person to pay compensation to the injured person.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".