The Comparative of Study Culpable Rights in Preliminary Investigation in Iran and Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preliminary investigation to determine the fate of the victims and the defendants ' judicial rights of the victims and the criminal justice is of special importance. The preliminary investigation of the center of gravity of the interrogation of suspects. Considering the necessity of supporting the principle of presumed innocence and preserve human dignity in the hearing process, the main lines of the meanwhile defensive rights defendants at the stage of preliminary investigation determined. Examples of the rights of the defense and legal formalities and job maker Iran and Turkey in the interrogation system varied. However, what is the condition for this is that a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of this extension should be anticipated and mandated. The legal rights of the accused is guaranteed set in the level of national, regional or international, and with the aim of adopting a decision in a fair and judicial errors than to keep away from people who are offence, in order to be exposed to. Including these rights can be charge with its reasons, the right to have a lawyer, the right to silence, a prohibition of delay and procrastination in charge after arrest or summons, the right note, the right to health in statements against torture questioned. Meanwhile, In the system of criminal procedure if what legislator to some of the aforementioned rights in its rules on match point but the hearing system in Turkey, including in particular anticipating the unconditional right to have a lawyer, the right to prohibit the delay in charges and the right to an annulment of the flawed investigation and classified problems. Obviously fix the defects and its assignment to investigation compliance under the law is just and fair hearing flow will be extremely helpful.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".