MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317982036 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n2p89

Analysis of Jurisprudence - Legal of Compulsion and Duress in Adultery

2016· article· en· W2317982036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Haeri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Women's Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdulteryPunishment (psychology)DignityCriminal lawRetributive justiceJurisprudenceObligationSeriousnessLawPolitical scienceCoercion (linguistics)CriminologyCriminal responsibilityLegislatorSociologyEconomic JusticeLegislationPsychologyPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminal responsibility is communicative ring and bridge of two important institutions of criminal law, crime and punishment and therefore is one of the most important issues of criminal law. On the other hand, one of the conditions of obligation and criminal responsibilities is authority and freedom of action that a person could be required to preserve and respect for life, property and dignity of the people that in the actions is autonomous and free. Although our legislator is considered to this issue in discretionary (Tazir) punishments crimes and life retribution explicitly and in the Haddi crimes are pointed to the lack of coercive responsibility, however, coercive criminal responsibility isn't specified in all instances of mentioned crimes, while in the discretionary (Tazir) punishments crimes, coercion is spiritual steward and is responsible for criminal responsibility due to the force committed crime and in the crime led to the death, in some cases crime is attributable to the duress, in the crimes included Hadd, coercing isn't considered spiritual steward. In this paper, the mentioned issue is discussed in terms of legal and regulatory concerning the crime of adultery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicGender and Women's RightsFrench-language works237,207