MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503688754 · doi:10.29173/alr185

Calm Like a Bomb: An Assessment of the Partial Defence of Provocation

2010· article· en· W2503688754 on OpenAlexaffvenue
W Renke

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvocation testDoctrinePresuppositionPosition (finance)Software deploymentLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceSociologyMedicineBusinessEpistemologyPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The partial defence of provocation has been used by the common law courts for some 400 years. Recently, it has been attacked for promoting male heterosexual violence and for its presupposition that ordinary people fly into homicidal rages. The author examines the provocation doctrine and argues that while some changes can be made to the drafting and deployment of the defence, provocation serves a legitimate purpose in accounting for the complexity of being human. The author supports this position by reviewing the application of the doctrine, addressing common criticisms of the defence, and suggesting improvements to the application of provocation that will prevent it from being used to devalue and degrade murder victims.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207