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
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it