MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

About improving regulation of the procedural order and the limits of changing the charges by the court

2024· article· en· W4404700410 on OpenAlex
Andrey S. Karpov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Southwest State University Series History and Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relevance. The article is devoted to the analysis of the problems of law enforcement in the field of changing the charge by the court of first instance. The article examines a number of issues: the possibility of changing the charge if a criminal case is terminated on non-rehabilitating grounds; granting the court a power to initiate a change in the charge; establishing the obligation of the public prosecutor to change the charge; changing the charge by the court if crime is reclassifying as a private prosecution crime; the limits of changing the charge by the court; changing the charge if a crime is committed in complicity; eliminating a technical error in the charge by the court. The proposals by the criminal procedure scientists are studied. Assessment of the possibility of implementing the provisions provided for by the legislation of a number of foreign countries (Lithuania, Norway, Canada, Brazil) governing the procedure and limits for changing the charge by the court. The purpose of the study is to analyze the problems that arise when the first instance court change the charges and formulate solutions. Research objectives: study of possible ways to improve the regulation of changing charges by the court; analysis of the legislation of foreign countries (Lithuania, Norway, Canada, Brazil, Malta, Azerbaijan) and the judicial practice of the ECHR in this area; developing solutions to problematic issues of changing charges by the court. Methodology . The methodological basis of the study was formed by comparative legal and historical methods of legal science, as well as analysis and synthesis. The results of the study consist in the development of theoretical proposals and practical recommendations for improving the procedural order and the limits of changing charges by the court in domestic legal proceedings. Conclusions. As a result of the study, the following main conclusions were formulated: it is necessary to establish a power of the court to change the charge if a criminal case are terminated, grounding by articles 75, 76, 76.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; granting to the court a right to raise the issue of changing the charge are violating the principles of impartiality of the court and the adversarial nature of the criminal process; the limits of the change of charge by the court need to be clarified.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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