INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO POLICE ACTIVITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the course of last two decades some European countries have created independent police complaints bodies with investigative powers, which were originally established in Canada and Australia. The creation of these bodies is in line with the independent investigation standards which have been determined by the European Court of Human Rights in its extensive body of case law as well as by the Commissioner for Human Rights in his Opinion concerning Independent and Effective Determination of Complaints against the Police. This article argues that the reluctance of many European states to comply with the specific independent investigation standards is a consequence of inconsistent and insufficiently clear case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as of the incomplete wording of the Commissioner’s Opinion when it comes to the investigation of human rights violations which are allegedly attributable to police activities.
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 | 0.085 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".