MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arama Kararının Hukuka Aykırı Şekilde İcrasından Elde Edilen Delilin Hükme Esas Alınması Sorunu Üzerine Karar İncelemesi

2020· article· tr· W2899412576 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venueİstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası / Istanbul Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Turkey
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantCourt decisionPolitical scienceLawBusinessLaw and economicsSociologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cases where the execution of the search warrant is carried out illegally, the issue of whether to make judgments based on evidence obtained in the execution of the search warrant is still a major problem in practice. In this study, the decision of the Constitutional Court dated November 19, 2014, application number 2013/6183, was examined. The decision was applied by Yaşar Yılmaz to the court individually. The development of material facts, views of authorities, and determined legal issues have been covered in our review of the judgment. We explain these legal issues and propose solutions to them based on legal evaluation.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.010

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.290 · 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