Possibilities of mediation in the criminal procedure with the eye of a labour lawyer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation or agreement between perpetrator and victim in criminal law is a special form of damage reparation. Contrary to the simple reparation – where is no need to have a formal contract between the parties – mediation means a meeting between the parties to make an agreement that suits to both of them.\nDevelopment of mediation in criminal law has its roots in the birth of diversion. It was a formal legal procedure to rebuild the injured legal system and repair damages. The first programs of mediation have appeared in Canada and the United States.\nDifferently from the conciliation in labour law authorities have to define guidelines about forms of procedures outside the trial, about the process and modes of harmonization to preserve the prestige of state’s power of punish.\nIn the mediation process competence of making decisions are in the hand of the parties too. Parties have to order upon the agreement. This extra-jurisdictional form of agreement means that the potential victim gives up his right to accusation. This agreement frees the perpetrator from the criminal liability.\nWe can say that fundamental principles of mediation are the same in any fields of law, but mediation in criminal law has the most interesting and numerable specification because of the state power.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".