MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416314255 · doi:10.61838/jecjl.305

Analytical Examination of the Position of the Presumption of Guilt in Iranian and Canadian Criminal Law

2025· article· W4416314255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Derakhshan, Reza Faani, Jafar Sadegh Manesh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Rights and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresumptionPresumption of innocenceConstitutionSubject (documents)Position (finance)Burden of proofReasonable doubtCriminal law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most prominent legal principles enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the presumption of innocence, explicitly stated in Article 37: “The principle is innocence, and no one is considered guilty under the law unless their crime is proven in a competent court.” However, subject to certain exceptions, deviation from the presumption of innocence is recognized under the notion of the presumption of guilt. In both Iranian laws—particularly the Islamic Penal Code—and Canadian criminal law, there exist instances in which, contrary to the presumption of innocence, the defendant must provide evidence to prove their own innocence. Nevertheless, in order to safeguard justice and fairness, the reversal of the burden of proof must remain an exceptional measure, confined to cases explicitly stipulated by law, and it must always be possible to rebut such a presumption.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0150.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and LawSame topicLegal Rights and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207