Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undoubtedly, in many cases, the definition of a legal term or an entity provided by lawyers has significant difference with the definition provided by the institution of the legislature. Therefore, it can be distinguished between the concept of abbeting from a legal perspective, i.e., from the perspective of lawyers and the legal perspective as well as that of the legislature. There is no single definition of abetment from a legal standpoint, but there are various definitions of the term. However, the definitions have much in common. Iranian legislator has not defined “abetment” in the Islamic Penal Code (2003) but addressed some cases of behaviors that may constitute complicity in the crime. In addition, the Iranian legislator has extended the scope of the crimes that shall also apply abetment in IPC (2013). This is contrary to the principle of minimumality of criminal law based on the scope of the criminal law must be limited. In addition, the new law has serious flaws that have the current paper tried to remind objections and provide recommendations for amendments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".