The Third-Party Revocation Action System: Status Quo, Theoretical Controversy and Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The third-party revocation action is a new system established in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China of 2012. Although the academic community is quite controversial, it is undeniable that due to the increasing use of the judicial system to infringe on the rights and interests of others. For example, infringement of the lawful rights and interests of the parties or third parties through false litigation, malicious litigation, imposing litigation, etc., the third-party revocation action as a system that can effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of third parties outside the case has great practical significance in China. Therefore, how to better understand and apply the third-party revocation system has become a problem that must be paid attention to by the current theoretical and practical circles. On the basis of introducing the system of revocation of the third party in China, the article discusses the existing problems such as the scope of the parties, the litigation procedure and the application of similar procedures.The article proposes that the third party with independent claim and the third party without independent claim should be brought into the scope of the third-party revocation action’s subject. As for the choice of the procedure, the procedure of first instance should be applied to the trial of the third-party revocation action. When a lawsuit and an application for retrial by an outsider can be applied simultaneously, the litigant can only be allowed to choose one procedure. If the litigant simultaneously initiates a lawsuit for cancellation by a third party and the outsider applies for retrial, the third-party revocation action shall be applied preferentially.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".