MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095126530 · doi:10.3968/11864

An Analysis of Prosecutorial Accountability Mechanism for Wrongful Cases

2020· article· en· W3095126530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chang Ting-bin, Guofeng Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityMisconductMechanism (biology)Political scienceEconomic JusticeLawCriminal justiceLaw and economicsSociologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prosecutorial accountability mechanism for wrongful cases will encourage legal handling of cases and ensure judicial justice. Despite the problems emerging in the process of prosecution, such as misapprehensions of arrests that do not result in criminal charges and of releases after a series of prosecutorial procedures, we cannot risk abolishing the mechanism that holds involving prosecutors liable for their mistakes and misconduct in wrongful cases, but endeavor to improve in ways that define wrongful cases, prosecutorial accountability and immunity from prosecutorial mistakes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207