MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estudio comparado entre España y México sobre el marco jurídico aplicable al feminicidio

2019· article· es· W2991634070 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Montero

Bibliographic record

VenueBoletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Health, and Social Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La idea de llevar a cabo el presente trabajo surge a raíz de los casos de feminicidios que en los últimos años están teniendo lugar en España y la consecuente necesidad de que el gobierno tome todas las medidas posibles para atajar la comisión de los actos delictivos que causan el asesinato de mujeres, empezando por la tipificación del feminicidio como un delito autónomo en el Código Penal español. Al hilo de estas circunstancias en este trabajo, se realiza un análisis de las causas que dan lugar a la comisión de tales actos, se argumenta la necesidad de su tipificación y se proponen algunas estrategias para erradicar la violencia feminicida. Asimismo, estos mismos parámetros analíticos (causas, tipificación y estrategias para su erradicación) se utilizan para estudiar la cuestión de los feminicidios en México.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoletín Mexicano de Derecho ComparadoSame topicGender, Health, and Social InequalityFrench-language works237,207