ԱՐՏԱՍԱՀՄԱՆՅԱՆ ԵՐԿՐՆԵՐՈՒՄ ՔՐԵԱԿԱՆ ԴԱՏԱՎԱՐՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՄԱՍՆԱԿԻՑՆԵՐԻ ՊԵՏԱԿԱՆ ՊԱՇՏՊԱՆՈՒԹՅԱՆ ՕՐԵՆՍԴՐԱԿԱՆ ՓՈՐՁԻ ՎԵՐԼՈՒԾՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses issues related to the regulation of the sphere of ensuring the safety and state protection of participants in criminal proceedings. The article analyzes the experience of foreign countries, including the USA, Canada, the French Republic, the Great Britain, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, in regulating the safety ensuring system for participants in criminal proceedings. Based on an analysis of the relevant legal acts of these countries and examples of the practical application of the provisions defined in them, criteria and mechanisms for the formation of an effective system for ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings are highlighted. As a result of the study, it was also emphasized that in the field of protection of participants in criminal proceedings, not only measures are needed to ensure physical safety, but also a unified system of social, psychological and financial support. The article also discusses the importance of involving private companies and public organizations in the field of protecting participants in criminal proceedings. In addition, the article formulates proposals for improving national legislation and legal practice in the field of regulation of this legal institution. In particular, the need to develop a national strategy for state protection of participants in criminal proceedings was discussed, taking into account the domestic legal system, its characteristics, the way of thinking of society and world standards.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".