Estudio de derecho comparado de los diferentes modelos de protección penal animal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work is about a study of comparative law of the crime of animal abuse \nin different countries (Spain, France, Switzerland, Russia, the United States, Canada, \nIndia and Japan). The main objective of this study is to address the level that Spain \nhas in relation to other countries in terms of animal abuse. First, animal protection is \ndetermined worldwide through a series of declarations and, subsequently, an \nanalysis of animal abuse is carried out in the selected countries. As far as Spain is \nconcerned, this work analyzes the most problematic aspects of the crime, such as the \ndelimitation of the protected legal asset, as well as the evolution of its regulation in \nrecent years due to the increase in the population's concern for the animals. Likewise, \na study of article 337 and 377 bis CP is carried out, whose introduction is due to the \ngreat social conflicts generated around this problem. Finally, a series of social and \nde lege ferenda proposals are exposed, for the benefit of animals so that, in the field \nof Criminal Law, there is a more effective application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it