Brainwashing and Extreme Psychological Coercion: A Comparison of the Italian Offense of 'Plagio' and the American Offense of Involuntary Servitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, many still believe that the defense of brainwashing is simply an excuse to avoid responsibility for one’s personal actions. This paper seeks to understand the North American use of this concept by the legal system by making comparisons to the concept in Italy. First, a general outline of the concept will be established by looking at a possible defence of brainwashing. Secondly, an overview of the Italian offence of “plagio” will be presented, and thirdly a comparison will be made to the American concept of “involuntary servitude.” will be examined Fourthly the historic case of Kozminski will be examined and contrasted with the modern case of Marcus. The paper will finish with a proposal for a North American offense of brainwashing and a call for more study into this very misunderstood area of the law. All of these concepts involve taking away the exercise of free will, and a consistent approach needs to be adopted that recognizes that psychological coercion may be as real as being physically caged.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".