MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6985173089

Sentencing

2020· other· en· W6985173089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal University Institutional Repository (Mount Royal University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceEconomic JusticePublic opinionSentencing guidelinesCriminal law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentencing in Canada has remained fairly consistent since formalized courts, at both the federal and provincial levels, were established shortly after Confederation in 1867. Once an accused person is convicted (found guilty) of a crime, the court must decide on an appropriate sentence. Sentencing is one of the most challenging and controversial aspects of our justice system. The public has strong opinions about it, the media reports its perspective, and the written law has its framework. In addition to all of that, there are the individuals affected by the crime—victims and offenders—who also have a broad range of religious, social, cultural, and moral values and views that influence their perspectives on sentencing. Regardless of any opinion or belief, a judge must adhere to the sentencing guidelines within the Criminal Code.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal University Institutional Repository (Mount Royal University)Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207