MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288362052

EUROPEAN AND CANADIAN PROVISIONS ON KEEPING CONTACT BETWEEN THE PERSON DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY AND HIS FAMILY, DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

2019· article· en· W4288362052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iulia POPESCU

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Rights and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily memberLawGenealogyPolitical scienceHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every democratic society seeks to create a stable environment for its members, trying to identify the needs of citizens, in all aspects, creating legal norms to ensure the proper functioning of society as a whole is one of the needs. The family as an institution, but also as a form of people's approach, requires maintaining a balance in the family relations, a desideratum pursued by both society and its members. Situations where a family member is deprived of liberty following a final court decision raise various questions about the family situation and the links between the family and the person in custody. The European states, as well as Canada, have recognized the importance of the family in the life of a person deprived of liberty by adopting rules in the field of penitentiary that contribute to the desideratum of the proper functioning of the family. But these rules also present, carefully scrutinized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLegal Rights and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207