MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771655407 · doi:10.18601/01210483.v38n104.02

Análisis Económico del Derecho penal y Derecho penal liberal: confluencias y bifurcaciones

2017· article· es· W2771655407 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Hernán Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueDerecho Penal y Criminología · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerechoPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No todo análisis económico lleva necesariamente a un Derecho penal maximalista que amenaza los derechos fundamentales de los individuos, sino que, por el contrario, es posible encontrar en la ciencia económica enfoques perfectamente compatibles con las corrientes más liberales del pensamiento penal. Este trabajo se propone hacer un estudio crítico de la teoría económica usualmente asociada al AED Penal, de sus implicancias prácticas y sus presupuestos teleológicos. La crítica partirá de una mirada abiertamente liberal, que defiende las ideas y valores que a lo largo de los siglos han expresado pensadores tan diversos como Adam Smith, Friedrich Von Hayek, Robert Nozick o Juan Bautista Alberdi.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.011

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.184 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDerecho Penal y CriminologíaSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207