On the Regulation and Improvement of the Right of Prosecutorial Counter-Appeal in Plea Bargaining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plea bargaining, one of the top-level system design priorities in China’s judicial reform, was officially written into the 2018 amended Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. A comprehensive legal system of substantive and procedural regulations combined, plea bargaining has undoubtedly set off a craze for the theoretical study of criminal procedure and made invaluable assets in it. In plea bargaining, however, how prosecuting authorities exercise the power of supervision is rarely learned. Given that, this paper will explore how prosecuting authorities deal with cases where the accused appeal for a lenient sentence after agreed plea bargains and how they exercise the power of supervision to avoid the dilemma of “prosecutorial counter-appeals in response to appeals” and get rid of misunderstandings of trial supervision.
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 | 0.031 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".