Pathological Analysis of the Charter of Citizenship Rights in Iran in Judicial Rights Terms with a Focus on Human Dignity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial right is one of the most significant fields of citizenship rights. A large part of the right legal instances become considerable when a citizen is under suspicion. To codify the examples of legal rights principally, the concept of human dignity needs to be the focal point on a constant basis. In the case of ignoring this criterion in arranging the constitutional rights the justice would not be attained, and the legal security of the citizens would be disrupted.Within the constitutional rights of Iran, the charter of the citizenship rights as a comprehensive document considered within the constitutional right field. In the preface and principles of this document human dignity is confirmed as one of the most significant factors in codifying the citizenship rights. However, in the continuation and in the arrangement of the instances of the citizenship rights this criterion has not been considered as expected.The charter of the constitutional rights compared to previous rules of it has no significant innovation. Two groups of factors have caused the insignificant role of human dignity within the judicial rights. The first groups include the general factors such as presenting an inaccurate definition of citizen and mingling the instances of human rights with examples of rights. The second group of factors that mostly relate the lack of precise positioning towards some of the accepted principles of the legal right has provided the possibility of violating human dignity in this charter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".