MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001462201

La garantía de la defensa eficaz en el marco del Código Procesal Penal Peruano

2022· dissertation· es· W7001462201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuerenati · 2022
Typedissertation
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal processes and jurisprudence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Subject (documents)Quarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La investigación tiene como problema general la siguiente interrogante\n¿Cómo influye la Garantía de Defensa Eficaz en el decurso ordinario del Proceso\nPenal Peruano?, cuyo objetivo es “Analizar cómo influye la Garantía de Defensa\nEficaz en el decurso ordinario del Proceso Penal Peruano”, y como supuesto “La\nGarantía de la Defensa Eficaz influye significativamente en el decurso ordinario\ndel Proceso Penal Peruano”; habiéndose utilizado como metodología general:\ninductivo – deductivo y el analítico – sintético.\n\nLa conclusión a la que se arribó “Se determinó que la Garantía de la\nDefensa Eficaz, si influye en el decurso ordinario del Proceso Penal, ya que\ncontiene sub-garantías que asumen un papel fundamental e imprescindible para\nla validez y legitimación del proceso penal; por ende, su ausencia deviene en la\nnulidad de este, y con ello corregir las deficiencias de la protección de principios\nprocesales mínimos”.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.353
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuerenatiSame topicLegal processes and jurisprudenceFrench-language works237,207