MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200182534 · doi:10.29173/wclawr63

Innocent in the Dark

2021· article· en· W4200182534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Víctor Beltrán Román

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wrongful Conviction Law Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsConvictionCriminal justiceInnocenceEconomic JusticePolitical scienceStatuteDutyLawCriminologyCriminal lawState (computer science)SociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preservation of biological evidence can profoundly impact criminal justice as it can be essential to establish the innocence of a convicted person and thus make evident a miscarriage of justice. The paper provides information and insights regarding the State’s duty to preserve biological evidence in criminal justice, thus improving accessibility issues in the post-conviction review in Chile. In doing so, the paper looks beyond Chile’s borders and seeks to obtain lessons from the U.S. States’ preservation statutes. The research uses law comparison to assess and comprehend the appropriateness of Chilean regulation and then to identify areas for improvement in the criminal justice system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wrongful Conviction Law ReviewSame topicLegal processes and jurisprudenceFrench-language works237,207