Institute of Joint Committing of a Crime in the Creative Heritage of Forensic Scientists of Pre-Revolutionary Russia (the Last Quarter of the XVIII — the First Half of the XIX Century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the genesis and formation of the institution of joint committing of a crime in the works of domestic scientists in the field of criminal material law in the last quarter of the 18th – first half of the 19th centuries. Based on the analysis carried out using specific historical and comparative research methods, similarities and differences in the researchers’ views on the basic provisions of the confluence of several persons when committing the same crime are revealed. The formation of the terminological apparatus, scientific approaches to the identification of types of participants, the differentiation of their functions are made. Researchers’ attempts to distinguish also forms of joint participation in the committing a crime along with the types of participants are obvious. In addition, a tendency to formalize, in addition to complicity, other forms of joint criminal activity is revealed. The authors conclude that all the constituent elements of the institution of joint committing a crime initially receive different terminology. The approach of Russian criminologists to determine the essence of the confluence of several persons in the committing a crime is ambiguous. According to the point of view of some scientists, this is a special type of crime (criminal activity), according to others, it is a special kind of interaction of several persons in the committing a crime. However, there are also unifying moments in the studies of Russian scientists: almost all of them explore the issues of the grounds for punishment for the joint committing a crime by different participants. In addition to complicity, other forms of joint committing a crime are identified, for example, such as involvement. Although, the figures of involved are not clearly separated from the accomplices of the crime.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".