MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751974185 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n4p146

A Reflection on Parents’ Responsibility for Harmful Acts of Major, Foolish and Physically Disabled Children in the Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

2017· article· en· W2751974185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siroos Heidari, Amir Ali Khodaie, Davood Janbazi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesMinor (academic)LawJurisprudenceLegal liabilityDutyDuty of careIslamLiabilityPsychologyCriminal liabilityMaturity (psychological)Political scienceCriminal lawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we seek to talk about civil responsibility of parents for acts of their children with juridical and legal approach. The main problem is that whether the parents have civil responsibility for harmful acts of their major and foolish children or not. The parents have civil responsibility for harmful acts of their foolish children (minor or mature) until they have custody on them. In the opinion of most of Islamic jurists, the parents’ right and duty of custody on their children will be expired by majority and mental maturity of the child. In addition, the parents will be liable for damages derived from the acts of their minor or insane children until they have protection and supervision duty on them. In all of the cases, failure to take care of the incapable person constitutes the legal basis of the parents’ liability. It may be said that the parents have responsibility for any losses arising from their failure to protect and take care of their physical disable children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.029
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207