NUEVO CODIGO PENAL PARA AFRONTAR LOS RETOS DE LAS MODALIDADES DELICTIVAS DEL SIGLO XXI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente revisión tiene el propósito de relacionar el derecho penal moderno cuestionando algunas instituciones jurídicas y concepciones punitivas que no son útiles dentro del Código Penal promulgado en 1991, A casi un cuarto de siglo de los cambios producidos, el Código Penal ha sufrido una seria afectación jurídica y no concordante con un necesario nuevo Código Penal para sancionar las conductas delictivas del siglo XXI, en las actuales circunstancias el Código Penal del Perú promulgado en 1991 ha devenido en obsoleto e insuficiente para combatir con éxito los delitos modernos. El código penal vigente tiene un total de 195 afectaciones jurídicas (terminología jurídica), es decir, que un 43,14 % ha sido modificado, lo cual consideramos excesivo. Es evidente que un nuevo código no va a solucionar el crimen organizado y todas sus variantes delictivas, pero este instrumento legal es necesario para combatirlo, por esto, es recomendable elaborar un nuevo código penal con participación de expertos, entre ellos, los designados por universidades, colegios de abogados y juristas calificados. Finalmente, el nuevo código para el Perú debe considerar el Preámbulo del Estatuto de Roma y, transitoriamente, debe comisionarse a expertos para redactar un Texto Único Concordado del Código Penal vigente.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".