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 OpenAlexaff
Tülay KİTAPÇIOĞLU YÜKSEL

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueİstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası / Istanbul Law ReviewSame topicLegal Issues in TurkeyFrench-language works237,207