Criminological and Legal Investigation of Independence and Despotism of the Judge in Judgment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most important criteria for realization of justice are independence and impartiality of judge when he makes a decision; it means that judge must see himself in a situation that he is not afraid of anything, and he should consider merely God, law and conscience in decision-making. Judge must have many conditions to sit in this position, and the judgment is perhaps the only position that he must has all these conditions together. The most basic tool of an independent judge is his knowledge and justice, and when knowledge and justice place beside an independent character, judicial process will be complete. In the Iranian constitution it has been reflected in Articles 156, 164 and 170 which show judge's independence. But beside independence, despotism of judge in decision-making should be noted. Despite basic difference between two words of “independence” and “despotism”, there is also a tiny likeness that both of the words have same meaning of making decision without involvement of other’s comment, but the root and origin of each word is different. Also it should be emphasized that consulting have not any conflict with independence of judge, but according to the advice of Sharia in verses and traditions of Islam, consultation is necessary for intellectual enhancement and development of people, especially the judge, who determines dignity, life, property and honor of people by his decision and his independence may convert into despotism and arrogance, without consulting. Constitution and normal laws have consider some solutions in various principles and articles to prevent despotism and to protect independence of judge in Iranian law that this issue can lead to a fair judicial system in Iran.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".