MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004713773 · doi:10.26686/vuwlr.v32i3.5870

In Absentia Trials and the Right to Defend: The Incorporation of a European Human Rights Principle into the Dutch Criminial Justice System

2001· article· en· W3004713773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictoria University of Wellington Law Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to a fair trialLawEconomic JusticeInterpretation (philosophy)Human rightsConventionPolitical scienceProject commissioningAdministration of justiceCriminal justicePublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a case against the Netherlands the European Court on Human Rights gave an interpretation of a provision in the Convention that amounted to the recognition of a defence right that was historically and systematically alien to Dutch criminal procedure. The Dutch criminal justice authorities had to respond to implement that recognition in the domestic justice administration. Besides explaining the intricacies of the Dutch trial in absentia, very often considered in comparative studies to be a rather odd feature of Dutch law, this article provides an interesting demonstration of the process of transplanting foreign legal ideas.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.269 · 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