Diagnostyka sądowo-kryminalna w orzekaniu i wykonywaniu warunkowego przedterminowego zwolnienia w teorii i praktyce sądowej – raport z badania
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
This paper summarises the research project titled ‘Criminal court diagnostics in granting parole and releasing on parole in judicial theory and practice’ implemented by the Institute of Justice. The aim of the project, including in particular the empirical study it comprised, was (among others) to validate the statement that the work of administrative staff of penitentiary establishments and penitentiary courts is lacking in terms of professional and in-depth criminological prognosis. The empirical study involved an analysis of 540 cases from the second quarter of 2013, in which cases inmates’ applications for parole were granted. One of the findings from the study was that the courts’ statements of reasons for decisions to grant parole (which seem to reflect the process whereby the court reaches the conclusion that it is justified to grant the given person parole) were inadequate (especially in the light of requirements provided for in Article 77(1) of the Criminal Code). This observation holds true for a large number of decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
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