Wytknięcie rażącej obrazy przepisów w ustawie z dnia 22 marca 2018 roku o komornikach sądowych/Reproach for a flagrant violation of the law in the Act of 22 March 2018 on Court Bailiffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Act of 22 March 2018 on Court Bailiffs introduced to the system provisions regulating the profession of court bailiffs the institution of reproach for a flagrant violation of the law. This institution derives from the Law on the Organization of Common Courts, but the lawmaker opted for extensive modifications in comparison to the original source: the ground for issuing a reproach is a flagrant violation of the law by the bailiff, and the only competent authority to issue it is the district court. Even though the imposition of this sanction affects, among other things, eligibility to serve as a bailiff-inspector or member of a disciplinary board, has to be disclosed on the roll of bailiffs kept by the National Bailiff Council, is binding in disciplinary proceedings and affects the severity of the penalty imposed in them, the affected bailiff has no legal recourse to challenge the reproach. The opportunity to present the district court with an explanation can hardly be regarded as a sufficient remedy to deal with an unfounded reproach.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".