Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter argues that one can have some memory loss over time but remain the same person and be held responsible for one’s earlier actions. Amnesia following an action does not entail that the agent had no cognitive or volitional control when he acted. Amnesia as such is not a mitigating or excusing condition. But an individual who had undergone a substantial identity change from extensive memory loss could not be held responsible or punished because he would have become a different person. The chapter also considers dissociative disorders such as somnambulism. The main question regarding these states is whether they impair a person’s capacity to form and translate an intention into a criminal act. Dissociation comes in degrees. A person in a dissociative state may have enough behavior control to be at least partly responsible for her actions. In addition, the chapter examines memory loss in omissions and whether it can be a mitigating factor in cases involving negligence causing death. The chapter also argues that a victim of an assault does not have an obligation to retain a memory of it to testify against the perpetrator. Her cognitive liberty gives her the right to erase the memory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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.
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".