Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both judicial practice and specialized texts have brought up the problem of what the punishment for breaking the legal provisions in the activity of evidence administration is, if a matter of fact had been presented by means that are not legally specified or if a piece of evidence was administered by means that are legally specified, but with the violation of legal provisions. Romania has adhered to the most important international juridical instruments adopted in the sphere of human rights by the adoption, modification or completion of internal legislation. As such, for the first time in Romanian criminal procedural legislation, a sanction for the exclusion of evidence has been introduced, as a corollary for the principle of legality and of loyalty in administering evidence. The New Criminal Procedure Code provides the sanction of exclusion as well, but this time the legislator didn’t resume his or herself to a mere conceptual regulation of the sanction, providing both a specific invalidation procedure as well as procedural solutions. In the New Criminal Procedure Code it is shown that in the sphere of evidence-showing a set of rules has been introduced that establishes the principle of loyalty in the obtainment of evidence. These rules, that provide the sanction of excluding evidence obtained through illegal or unloyal means, will determined the growth of professionalism in the ranks of the judiciary bodies on the subject of obtaining evidence and, on the other hand, will guarantee the firm upholding of the parties rights to a fair trial. “Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely – may be pursued too keenly – may cost too much…” Lord Justice Sir James Lewis Knight-Bruce ”It is a deeply ingrained value in our democratic system that the ends do not justify the means. In particular, evidence or convictions may, at times, be obtained at too high a price”. – Antonio Lamer Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".