MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485542665 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n3p279

The Rights of Victim in the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure Act 2013

2016· article· en· W2485542665 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmad Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompensation (psychology)Position (finance)Criminal codeCriminal procedureCriminal justiceCriminologyPolitical scienceLawHuman rightsPhenomenonCode (set theory)Theory of criminal justicePsychologyCriminal lawBusinessSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study investigates the rights of victim in the light of developments in the Code of Criminal Procedure 2013 in Iran. The victim as one of the pillars of the criminal phenomenon has found its actual and certain situation in criminal policy of communities. Criminal researchers have focused most of their efforts on elements such as crime, offenders, and penalties. But the victim of a crime or crimes often also plays a role in the crime, has been forgotten. With the advent of the knowledge of the victim in recent decades and highlighting human rights issues through the adoption of international and regional documents and regulations on offenders and victims, the ground for serious attention to the position of victims in national criminal justice systems has been provided. Therefore, moral and material support of victims like predicting the Compensation Fund, psychological and medical support are seen in the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure Act of 2013. This study aims to explain the legal grounds supporting the victims and review and analyze the effects of the rights of this vulnerable group.</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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207