MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007319361 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.02

An Analytical Study of Pre-Trial Processes in Speedy Disposal of Cases in the Criminal Justice System of Malaysia

2020· article· en· W3007319361 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceLawCriminal procedureEconomic JusticeCriminal codeWork (physics)Theory of criminal justicePolitical scienceBusinessCriminal trialCriminal lawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is an attempt to analyse the role of pre-trial processes in the criminal justice system in Malaysia as far as the speedy justice is concerned. Before 2010, Malaysia faced a huge backlog of criminal cases in the court; however, it made amendments in the code of criminal procedure and introduced the pre-trial processes in the criminal justice system of Malaysia to resolve the huge backlog and to promote the speedy trial. The researcher in this research has determined and explored that how pre-trial processes work in the way of disposal of criminal justice, and how it has reduced the huge backlog of criminal cases from the courts. The researcher has explained many case laws, provisions of criminal procedure code and described the opinions of judges and legal entities in Malaysia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.295 · 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