Experience of Some Countries of The Commonwealth of Nations in Ensuring Criminological Protection of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article describes the experience of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the field of criminological protection of justice. A combination of philosophical, general scientific and specific scientific research methods was used in the preparation of this article to find out which special actors are authorized to carry out such criminological activities, to analyze the powers and guarantees for their exercise to fulfill their tasks. The article reveals the peculiarities of interaction of special actors of ensuring the security of justice with other actors in the system of combating offenses and crimes against justice. The author emphasizes the role of the sheriff, police, and private security companies in ensuring security during the judicial process. The experience of these Commonwealth countries in identifying and counteracting possible threats to the security of justice is analyzed. The purpose of this work was to single out positive foreign experience that may be promising for implementation into the national legislation with the aim of improving activities of the Court Security Service, which is a special subject performing implementation of the function of criminological protection of justice in Ukraine. In particular, firstly, to find out which special entities are authorized to carry out the specified criminological function in certain countries of the British Commonwealth and what powers they have; secondly, what other law enforcement agencies are involved in the mechanism of ensuring criminological protection of justice and what are the features of their interaction with special subjects; thirdly, what measures they take to detect and counter possible threats to the security of justice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".