MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Judicial Approach Towards Rights of Accused

2023· article· en· W4390519266 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical sciencePresumptionStatuteCriminal justiceTheory of criminal justiceCriminal procedureCriminal lawPunishment (psychology)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of Criminal Law is to provide safety of the society from the offenders. For approving this purpose court make some laws regarding the ending of crime from the society, there are several punishment also given. This abstract is mainly just for the based on the right of accused under Criminal Law. With the help of this paper, I want to show the rights of accused and presumption of innocent until he or she found guilty. At the end of trial on proper evidence, rights of accused are secured, that is laid down under constitutional law or criminal law or secured under many laws. For imposing the legal or Fundamental Right, basically should know the statutes where they are prescribed. The criminal procedures have to inspired by ideals relating security or social bond, if there is not Social Solidatory. Under criminal law to be a fair trial is a back bone of criminal justice system. The objective of criminal justice system is to do justice with public.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.283 · 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