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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
expert opinion provided by Johannes Kaspar 1 and the accompanying scholarly commentaries, 2 ensuing proposals for fundamental reform met with rejection. The comparative perspective was limited to the US Federal sentencing guidelines. is overly narrow perspective and the all in all disappointing results of the DJT motivated us to make the topic of sentencing from a comparative legal perspective the subject of the thirteenth Gttingen criminological colloquium. 5 Our primary aim was to draw a differentiated picture of Anglo-American sentencing law and, by translating the relevant articles into German, to make this information widely accessible in German-speaking jurisdictions, especially to German practitioners. A second objective was to make the German perspective (better) known within the Anglo-American legal world. Thus, the German contributions to the colloquium were translated into English, and some key contributions relevant to the DJT's debate were made available in English for the first time. The result is this bilingual volume, with three parts: Part I, the most substantial section, includes articles on English and Welsh, US, and Canadian sentencing law, each with a commentary from a German perspective. Part II contains a supplementary conference report. Part III provides (selective) English documentation on the DJT discussion (a summary of Kaspar's report, articles by Kudlich/Koch and Verrel), which is aimed primarily at interested colleagues from the Anglo-American legal world. We decided to proceed with open access publication in order to achieve the widest possible dissemination of the works.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.014 |
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 it