MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402956675 · doi:10.46626/affc.2024.18.2.8

A Study on the Improvement of Punishment System in the Inquisitorial Structure : In Relation to an Introduction of the Discipline System in Canada

2024· article· en· W4402956675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venue교정담론 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Punishment (psychology)Political scienceLawCriminologySociologyComputer sciencePsychologySocial psychologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

국가인권위원회가 생긴 이래로 2022년까지 교정기관의 ‘조사 및 징벌 등’에 대한 진정 건수가 5,113건에 달하고 있다. 이에 교정본부는 법령 등의 개정으로 징벌 사유의 변화, 징벌위원회 의 외부위원 3명 이상 규정, 징벌 종류의 다변화 등 계속하여 불만을 최소화하기 위해 노력하였다. 하지만 여전히 교정기관은 국가인권위원회로부터 조사 및 징벌 규정과 관련하여 권고 결정 을 받고 있고, 수용자들의 불만 역시 여전히 높다. 그 불만의 시작이자 가장 중요한 점은 현재의 징벌제도가 규문적 구조라는 것이다. 이와 같은 고민을 일찍이 하여 교정기관 징벌제도의 변혁을 크게 한 대표적인 나라가 캐나다이다. 캐나다는 징벌제도를 징 벌위원회에서 교도소 재판으로 변화시켜 징벌 절차의 공정성 확 보와 절차적 정당성을 확립하였다. 이에 현재 우리 교정기관 징 벌제도의 문제점을 살펴보고, 캐나다 교도소 징벌제도를 그 대 안으로 제시하여 보겠다.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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 venue교정담론→Same topicCriminal Law and Evidence→French-language works237,207→