MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914690444

What the public think about sentencing

2009· article· en· W2914690444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robyn Lincoln, Marisela Velazquez

Bibliographic record

VenueBond University Research Portal (Bond University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLawCriminologyBusinessPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a relatively long tradition by legal scholars of gauging public perceptions about sentencing in Canada, the UK and the USA, along with limited research in Australia. This research is significant because 'the importance of public attitudes to sentencing lies in their potential to influence the development of policy guiding the criminal justice system'. Public confidence is essential for the effective functioning of justice. While it is the case that politicians and legislators make the laws, and judges and other justice agents (eg, police and prosecutors) apply them, the public has a role to play in guiding the types of punishments meted out. Thus, measuring public opinion is necessary because it is both a reflection of, and a potential influence over, sentencing practices.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBond University Research Portal (Bond University)Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207