MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411526858 · doi:10.61838/kman.lsda.3.2.7

Examining the Criminological Foundations of Intentional Crimes in the Criminal Law of Iran and Canada

2024· article· en· W4411526858 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ardeshir Jafarnejad Sani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPunishment (psychology)Criminal lawRetributive justiceImprisonmentPunitive damagesLegislatorCriminal justiceCulpability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intentional crimes occur in two forms: intentional crimes against life, which result in the death of the victim, and intentional crimes below the threshold of life, which cause harm to a body part of the victim. The occurrence of crimes in societies fundamentally depends on the presence of underlying factors that facilitate criminal behavior. Therefore, the judicial system must identify the root causes of crime and take appropriate measures to address them. One of the significant causes of criminal behavior is the mental health issues of the perpetrator. Under Iranian law, an intentional crime is an offense committed by an adult, sane, and voluntary individual. The legislator has explicitly defined the concept of intent in the relevant provisions (Articles 289 and beyond) of the Islamic Penal Code, enacted in 2013, to determine the classification of intentional crimes. In Canadian law, under Section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, an intentional crime is defined as the deliberate intent to harm another person, with the perpetrator being aware that such actions are likely to result in death and displaying reckless disregard as to whether their actions lead to the killing of another human being. In intentional crimes against physical integrity, where direct harm is inflicted on individuals, the criminal lawsuit holds a private nature. In Iranian law, the primary punishment for intentional crimes is retribution (Qisas), whereas in Canada, which follows the common law system, life imprisonment is considered the principal punishment for such offenses. The research method employed in this article is descriptive and analytical. This study seeks to answer the question: What are the criminological foundations of intentional crimes in the criminal law of Iran and Canada? The objective of this research is to determine the criminological foundations of intentional crimes in the criminal law systems of Iran and Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207