MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122179429 · doi:10.3138/utlj.11117-2

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND CONCEPTIONS OF PENALITY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2013· article· en· W3122179429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Markus D. Dubber

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionCriminal jurisdictionGermanCriminal lawLawPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Universal jurisdictionCriminal procedureCriminologySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article undertakes a critical analysis of the concept of criminal jurisdiction from a comparative and historical perspective, focusing on common criminal law and German criminal law in particular. Despite a recent upsurge of interest in criminal jurisdiction in the international sphere, domestic criminal jurisdiction remains understudied in both legal systems. Turned inward, conceptions of ‘international’ criminal jurisdiction in a given domestic legal system turn out to reflect the tension between competing fundamental conceptions of state penality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.049
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207