MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106675975 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v14n1p19

Special Confiscation as a Measure of Criminal Law under Ukrainian Legislation

2020· article· en· W3106675975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Т. Б. Ніколаєнко, Viktoria Babanina, Tetiana Bohdanevych

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUkrainian Legal and Forensic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfiscationLawLegislationCriminal lawPunishment (psychology)Political scienceCriminal procedureBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the study of special confiscation as a measure of criminal law, other than punishment, which was introduced into the legislation of Ukraine on the way of transformation and reformation of the institution of confiscation of property. The study found that the emergence of special confiscation was dictated primarily by Ukraine's choice of European integration and the need to fulfil its obligations to bring domestic criminal law in line with European standards and international legal practice in combating crime. The article notes that today the confiscation of property remains one of the most controversial measures of criminal law in both domestic and foreign law. Traditionally, in the criminal law of Ukraine, this measure played the role of one of the types of punishment. However, at the present stage of development of criminal law, the legal regulation of forced confiscation of property has undergone significant changes. Currently, this is not only a form of criminal liability, but also different from the latter, another measure of criminal law, which manifests itself in three forms, namely as: 1) special confiscation of property of an individual; 2) confiscation of property of a legal entity; 3) special confiscation of property in respect of a legal entity. The article analyzes the provisions of the current criminal legislation of Ukraine on the regulation of special confiscation as another measure of criminal law and considers the main problematic aspects of this institution in the doctrine of criminal law of Ukraine. The correlation between general confiscation and special confiscation was revealed in the article. The conclusion was drawn that these two types of confiscations are different in legal nature. Confiscation of property is a type of additional punishment, and special confiscation of property is an independent type of other measures of a criminal law nature. The main difference between the investigated institutions is that their application seizes property of different nature, namely: the subject of confiscation of property is property that belongs to the convict on the right of ownership, and in the case of special confiscation, property related to the commission of a crime is subject to confiscation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicUkrainian Legal and Forensic StudiesFrench-language works237,207