MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150041875 · doi:10.7220/2029-4239.22.3

Kai kurie vagystės kriminalizavimo probleminiai aspektai Lietuvos ir kitų užsienio šalių baudžiamuosiuose įstatymuose

2020· article· lt· W3150041875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andželika Vosyliūtė, Albertas Milinis

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languagelt
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminalizationLegislatorLithuanianCriminal lawCriminal codePolitical scienceLawLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article is aimed to analyze theft, as it is foreseen in Article 178 (theft) of The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The aimof this study is to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of criminalizing theft in Lithuanian criminal law and to submit proposals to the legislator regarding adding and amending features of the act. In order to achieve these goals, the following tasks are set: to provide a historical overview of the criminalization of theft, to perform a detailed analysis of the criminalization of theft in the criminal laws of Lithuania and other countries, to submit proposals to the legislator of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the establishment of a certain subjective features of theft, to find out whether it is necessary to expand the subject matter of the theftinLithuanian criminal law. While trying to evaluate the current legal regulation established in the CC of Lithuania, at the same time the authors examine the criminal laws of other countries (Germany, Poland, Hungary, France, etc.)In their article, the authors also examine the identification of objective and subjective features in criminalizing theft. The authors point out that, for example, criminalization of theft in criminal law, in some countries, including Lithuania, name propertyof another(Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Russia, Italy, Australia, England) as theft, others a objectof another(Germany, Hungary, France, Turkey), and still others (Canada and England) use a broader term to define the subject of theft -money, any other movable and immovable property, as well as the right of claim and other intangible property. Moreover, the authors point out that subjective features (motive and purpose) in criminalizing theft are not enshrined in Article 178 of the CC of Lithuania. Meanwhile, the criminal laws of some foreign countries also define theft as a sign of selfishness -seeking to obtain(material) benefits [...].

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueLaw ReviewSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207