A Contrastive Study of Heteroglossia in the Reasoning of Criminal Judgments of Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong
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
Within the framework of the Engagement System of Appraisal Theory, this thesis investigates the heteroglossia of the reasoning of criminal judgments of Chinese mainland and Hong Kong and examines their similarities and differences in the employment of heteroglossic engagement resources and underlying causes. The reasoning of 20 criminal judgments of Chinese mainland and Hong Kong produced upon second instance for the same cause of action are collected and built as two separate corpora to carry out the study. It is found that judges of both Chinese mainland and Hong Kong employ various heteroglossic engagement resources to locate position and negotiate with other voices while proceeding with reasoning. Furthermore, they share some similarities in the selection of subtypes of engagement resources, which is attributed to the fact that they hold similar communicative purposes in the reasoning of judicial judgments; while the differences can be interpreted from the distinct legal doctrines in the mainland and Hong Kong and the textual structure of the reasoning of criminal judgments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.085 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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