Confession Validity in Civil Right in Iranian Law and International Conventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confession importance in retribution and even in civil affairs is so that law scientists call it as key reasons. Its importance is that is always in claims such as the most important reason to it. In principal in punishment affairs, confession accused without there is investigation on his/her validity confession and there is documentaries on its affirm, there is not subjectivism and maybe there is from knowledge and presumption from court located on accused crime identification, therefore there is not worth confession that it obtains from compulsion, threat and torment and it has no way to it and taking confession to this way is perfect breach for civil law in law examination. There is one of sensible antitype retribution justice, observe civil law in judgmental courts there is the most important pillar in observation civil right, security and freedom in judgement sessions and especially confession controversy is the same subject. Guarantee civil law and judgement execution all of judgement procedures including crime discovery, pursuit, investigation, punishment execution or security and cultivation actions are basic assignments of retribution justice. In this study there was paid to specify confession place in judgements and volume its credit with confirm on civil rights.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".