Beijing Reform – The Extent of Criminalization and Recommendations for the Polish Lawmaker (Po reformie pekińskiej – zakres kryminalizacji i wskazania dla ustawodawcy polskiego)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: This paper is a detailed study of the differences between the Montreal Convention 1971 (as amended by the 1988 protocol) and the Beijing Convention 2010, and between the Hague Convention 1970 and the Beijing Protocol 2010, which amends the latter convention. The broadened scope of criminalisation in the 2010 instruments and the newly defined forms of international crimes are discussed. This includes a commentary on the drawbacks of the existing treaties and on their reform. Shortfalls of the Beijing Convention and the Beijing Protocol are also pointed out. Additionally, the compatibility of Polish criminal law with the current international provisions and with the 2010 international instruments is considered. In both instances, specific amendments to national regulations are recommended. Polish Abstract: Artykul wykazuje roznice pomiedzy konwencją montrealska z 1971 r. (zmienioną protokolem z 1988 r.) a konwencją pekinską z 2010 r. oraz pomiedzy konwencją haską z 1970 r. a protokolem pekinskim z 2010 r. (zmieniającym te konwencje). Szczegolowo omowione jest poszerzenie zakresu przedmiotowego przestepstw miedzynarodowych, a takze zmiany dotyczące ich form stadialnych i zjawiskowych oraz strony podmiotowej. Skomentowano tez usuniecie mankamentow dotychczasowych regulacji. Tekst wskazuje na pewne braki aktow konferencji pekinskiej. Ponadto przedmiotem rozwazan jest kompatybilnośc polskiego prawa karnego z dotychczasowymi oraz zreformowanymi normami miedzynarodowymi. W obu przypadkach artykul wskazuje na potrzebe pewnych zmian w regulacji krajowej.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".