MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591499052 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n1p261

The Similarities and Differences between the Arbitration and Judgement Verdicts in Iran’s Laws

2017· article· en· W2591499052 on OpenAlex
Amir Mehdi Ghorbanpur, Sara Khakestarian

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Rights and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerdictJudgementLawArbitrationSupreme courtAdjudicationJurisdictionPolitical scienceAppealPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of current research is to determine the similarities and differences between the arbitration and judgement verdicts in Iran’s laws. The results of current research indicate that there are many differences and similarities in the arbitration and judgement field in Iran’s laws. General similarities, attributes of judge and arbitrator from religious jurisprudence’s view, verdicts in Iran’s internal laws, investigation with reasons, and final sentence in the arbitration and judgement verdicts can be mentioned as some of these similarities. Also about the differences, some cases like: observance of the principles and adducing to the legal articles at the time of composing the verdict, observance of the formalities and judgement provisions in issuance of verdict, verdicts in terms of requesting for the revision, ability to appeal to the Supreme Court, rehabilitation, jurisdiction, protestation, issuance of verdict by judges and arbitrators, procedural conditions in composing the verdict, regard to recite the verdict in terms of being revisable or non-revisable, third-party entry ability, attracting the third-party, features of verdicts in terms of the ability to prove, possibility to issue the request for garnishee and temporary commandment, correction of verdict, the features of verdicts in terms of the res judicata, competence for issuance of reformatory report, competence for issuance of preliminary (interlocutory) decree, moratorium for objecting about the verdict, the third-party’s ability to object about the verdict, having the relative effect, changing the verdict (judge exemption, arbitrator exemption), communication of verdict, the manner of judgement investigation with courts, investigation dependent on provisions of civil judgement rules, investigation dependent on judgement principles (correspondence principle, observance of the defense right of parties), competence for investigation of the legal affairs, start to investigate, the investigation range, the investigation place, being overt or non-overt, investigation and transmission to the another person, difference between arbitration and judgement in the religious jurisprudence and judge and arbitrator positions from the religious jurisprudence are some results obtained at current research.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.237 · 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