MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205991489 · doi:10.17762/de.vol2022iss1.8686

Shedding a Light on the Rights of the Accused: An Indian Perspective

2022· article· en· W4205991489 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPerspective (graphical)Political sciencePeriod (music)FaithCover (algebra)Good faithPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author has endeavored to shed a light on the numerous provisions and rights conferred to a person accused of a crime. These rights encompass all the rights that an accused enjoys throughout his trial, from the very moments of his arrest to the period of a legal trial, and to the period of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner, ending just before the outcome of the trial. The article is an attempt to trace and analyze the practice of submitting evidence and documents by way of a sealed cover. The paper also puts forth the effects that the said practice has had on the rights of the accused and also sheds light on the effect of the said practice on the public faith in the judicial system, through the lens of decided cases both recent and old.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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