Conflict between Confession and the Testimony When Proving Murder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important aspect is fundamental in criminal law, and jurisprudence arguments would be a judicial conflict in proving the crime. During the procedure of a murder case, it is possible the conflicts arise between the evidence of confession and religious testimony as a proof to prove the murder crime to specify the murderer; such that any of the argument suggests the particular person’s culpability. Because of the various case, determining the probative value of each of them would have a significant impact on such conflict to resolve, regarding jurisprudence and legal. Therefore, the legislator in Article 213 of the Penal Code of Islam, adopted in 2013, has made it clear the probative value of any argues, prioritizing any evidence of confession than that of religious statement while conflicting with each other. If the legislator takes precedence of the evidence of faith over the religious testimony provided that assessing both things of evidence by the adjudicating authority and s/he does waive to apply the phrase to the text of Article, the discovery of the truth and identifying the actual perpetrator with justice-based purpose will be more compatible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".