MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392095522 · doi:10.55908/sdgs.v12i2.3239

ACTION OF CHINESE COURTS WITH THE ANTI-TORTURE LEGAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE: A SOCIO-LEGAL NARRATIVE CRITIQUE ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION OF LAW AND LEGAL REASONING

2024· article· en· W4392095522 on OpenAlexaff
Mingming Hai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Sustainable Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsAdidas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureLawObligationPolitical scienceNarrativeAction (physics)ConventionCriminologySociologyHuman rightsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The most of critique is based mainly on the previous literature, namely, that Chinese dynamic institutional structures’ silence may have exacerbated the miscarriage of justice and obtain illegal evidence in criminal proceedings in China. However, the fact that torture to extract confessions and maltreatment of prisoner’s cases involve judicial decision-making by Chinese hierarchical courts has been disregarded. Objective: Taking China's outward telling and internal judicial reforms as starting positions, the article focuses on address the knowledge gap that torture to extract confessions and maltreatment of prisoner’s cases involving the application of law and legal reasoning regarding how Chinese domestic courts' actions is related to the interpretation of torture and domestic compliance with international conventions. The causes of action include torture to extract confessions, maltreatment of prisoners in criminal scenarios, and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment involving detention in police custody (garde a vue) and outside custodial settings. The article also examines how Chinese hierarchical courts have implemented their judicial practice in accordance with international obligations to prohibit and prevent torture under United Nations Convention against Torture. Methods: Process tracing is a qualitative research method that examines causal processes connecting results to potential causes form socio-legal perspectives, focusing on varying time stages. It is essential for within-case analysis based on qualitative data. Implication: This article highlights the intricate relationship between the definition of torture in law in context in UNCAT and treaty compliance by China domestic court, addressing flaws in previous court decisions and responding to those points of view to gain a more in-depth understanding of the dynamics underlying cases of confessions extracted under torture, ill-treatment in prisons and outside custodial settings (garde a vue) in China's criminal judicial system.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207