MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390658855 · doi:10.53024/1.4.52.2023

Możliwość orzeczenia zakazu zajmowania stanowiska (stanowisk), wykonywania zawodu (zawodów) lub prowadzenia działalności związanej z wychowaniem, leczeniem, edukacją małoletnich lub opieką nad nimi za przechowywanie lub posiadanie treści pornograficznych z udziałem małoletniego – analiza empiryczna i formalno-dogmatyczna

2023· article· pl· W4390658855 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oskar Kwasiński, Jacek Potulski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal codeLawPolitical scienceMinor (academic)CriminologyPsychologyCriminal law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to answer the question whether adjudicating a ban on holding a position (or positions), practicing a profession (or professions) or conducting activities related to the upbringing, treatment, education or care of minors for storing or possessing pornographic content with the participation of a minor child is legally justified de lege lata. The authors present their standpoint on the basis of a detailed analysis of the elements of penal measures under Articles 39(2) and 39(2a) of the Polish Criminal Code and the conditions for adjudicating these measures provided for in Articles 41(§1) and 41(§1a) of the Criminal Code. For this purpose, a review of Canadian, American, Swiss, German and Czech studies on the correlation between crimes involving child pornography and physical sexual abuse of minors has been conducted. At a later stage, a formal-dogmatic exegesis of rights protected by the types of prohibited acts criminalizing the possession or storage of child pornography, the concept of ‘damage to a minor’ and the collision arising from the application of Article 41(§1) and Article 41(§1a, sentence 2) of the Criminal Code has been undertaken. The conclusion that emerges from both the hitherto achievements of empirical research and the appropriately made formal-dogmatic analysis indicates that at present there are no legal grounds to adjudicate the said criminal ban in the case of possessed or stored, and not self-created, child pornography. Nonetheless, a possible social unrest arising from the fact of a professional contact with children by persons having or storing such materials may be accommodated by a simple amendment to the Article 41(§1a, sentence 2) of the Criminal Code, as proposed by the authors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentFrench-language works237,207