MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016273458 · doi:10.31743/zn.2017.60.3.269-279

Mediación policial y tutela judicial efectiva en la actualidad: reflexiones de una romanista

2020· article· es· W3016273458 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

VenueZeszyty Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative International Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesDerechoPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No se duda de que el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva es clave en la conformación del Estado de Derecho, pero también ha impedido la posibilidad de establecer formas de justicia extrajudicial a las que se apela en los últimos tiempos como fórmula de salvación para una Justicia enferma. El estudio de esta cuestión requiere un análisis histórico de las fuentes jurídicas romanas, este será el marco histórico que fundamenta desde un punto de vista dogmático la actividad de la Policía como gestora de conflictos. Así, se pondrá de relieve la importancia del método de los juristas romanos y del trabajo del Pretor –magistrado jurisdiccional- no sólo como antecedentes históricos, sino como elementos esenciales en la configuración del Sistema de Administración de Justicia en el que la mediación ha de ser tratada como uno de sus instrumentos.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.333 · 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