MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Criminal Responsibility

2010· other· en· W4231510701 on OpenAlex
Patricia A. Zapf

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueThe Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictCriminal responsibilityInsanityLawCriminologyCriminal lawState (computer science)Mens reaPolitical scienceProduct (mathematics)HebrewSociologyPsychologyHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The issue of criminal responsibility, or insanity, has to do with an individual's mental state at the time of the offense. The basic philosophy—which stems back to the earliest recordings of Hebrew law and is still in effect throughout the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Wales, and other countries—is that to convict a person charged with a crime, he or she must be considered responsible for his or her criminal behavior. That is, the criminal behavior must have been a product of free will. If a defendant's behavior was not a product of free will, then he or she should not be held responsible for the crime.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · 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