Discussion on the Problem of Misunderstanding in Mittelbare Täterschaft
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of misunderstanding in mittelbare taterschaft (indirect offence) causes a big controversy in the identification of the indirect offenders. Plenty of researches have been done around this issue by scholars, and many different views have been brought up. Among them, the focus of controversy is mainly about two particular situations: the user having a wrong knowledge about the nature of the tool being used, and the person used becoming an insider halfway through the crime. Through the analysis of existing representative principles and perspectives, the authors believe the user should be considered as constituting indirect offence if the user’s practice is equivalent to an instigator, with the mean of an indirect offender, due to misunderstanding; similarly, the user should also be punished as an indirect offender if the user’s practice is equivalent to an indirect offender, with the mean of an instigator, due to misunderstanding; on the other hand, punish the user as an indirect offender under the circumstance when the innocent person used becomes an insider seems reasonable. By discussing the problem of misunderstanding in indirect offence, we hope we can benefit from it for further research on problems relevant to indirect offence.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it