Improving Public Security Administrative Mediation System in China
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
Public security administrative mediation is an important part of Chinese administrative legal system. It plays an important role in maintaining social order and stability, and preventing and resolving social disputes. A positive attitude by public security authorities towards social disputes is very important, while if public security authorities use its power to lead mediation to a certain way, or force mediation onto the disputants, the impacts can be quite negative. Public security should use administrative mediation on a wide range of civil disputes, and regulate the use of mediation through the establishment of appropriate procedures and disclosure of information and process related to the mediation. The court should also strengthen its monitoring and oversight of administrative mediation. Rather than reviewing the specific disputes that were mediated, the court should focus on whether mediation was conducted under the free will of the disputants, whether mediation results reflect an agreement by the disputants, whether mediation was carried out according to legal procedures, and whether mediation results were detrimental to public interests or the lawful interest of others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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