MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751339960 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340011

Prosecution of Rhino Poachers: The Need to Focus on Prosecution of the Higher Echelons of Organised Crime Networks

2016· article· en· W2751339960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Doya Nanima

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Political sciencePoachingLawFocus (optics)CriminologyLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a focus on the prosecution of persons who are arrested in the course of poaching rhinos in national parks, other than the members who form the higher echelons of the networks. This contribution advances the argument that there is need to create a framework that leads to the prosecution of the higher echelons of the organised crime groups, who are usually beyond South Africa’s borders. To advance this argument, the author evaluates the classification system of networks, the legal regime and the prosecutorial gaps and the evaluation system of progress employed by the National Prosecuting Authority and the Department of Environmental Affairs. Recommendations for reform follow.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207