Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its specific definitions across countries, murder has got a universal character. Human life is of primary importance and a universal value in every society, so legal measures in different legislaton are also universal. If human life is regarded as the object of protection in criminal legislation, it could be noticed that modern criminal legislation has developed a penalty system in order to protect human beings in practice, and that the system, regardless of the differences among criminal legislations of different countries, in almost all those countries has the same basic characteristics. This paper provides an overview of murder as a most serious offence, in which penalties for this criminal offence, as in crimination against human life, are compared between the Anglo-Saxon and European Continental legal systems. By analyzing criminal legislations in Great Britain, the United States of America, Australia and Canada we presented the key principles of common and statute law related to murder as a most serious offence. Within the European Continental legal system, we have analyzed criminal legislations in the following countries: France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. For murder a severe penalty is imposed. In some states of the USA and Russia capital punishment is imposed; where capital punishment is abolished, it is replaced with the maximum duration sentence - life imprisonment. In our criminal legislation, sentence of thirty to forty years’ imprisonment may be imposed for murder, as this is the most severe sentence in our criminal law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".