MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006852698

До питання щодо зарубіжного досвіду формування і розвитку інституту звільнення від відбування покарання на прикладі Канади

2022· article· uk· W7006852698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeKNUTSHIR · 2022
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationStaffingTransparency (behavior)Government (linguistics)Punishment (psychology)Best practiceFocus (optics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper reviewed the evolution of legislation on the release from (serving) punishment (Parole) in Canada, emphasizing the separate story of Canada Parole in the Common Law Family Countries. The key stages of the parole development, role of government institutions, essential features of the old and modern system of Parole in Canada described and systemized for further study. The key features of the Canadian Parole Laws identified. Preliminary comparative assessment of the areas of possible improvements of the Ukrainian release of punishment legal procedures to meet the best practice and humanitarian principals provided. The paper takes the approach from based on key aspects of Parole development in Canada: public safety; transparency and openness; fair rules. The certain core features of each aspects identified. The paper reads the consequent stages of the Parole development with a tendency to rehabilitation and correction focus rather than punitive. In a summary paper puts in place the preliminary recommendations on the streams of the further study towards development of the advanced models of the Parole in Ukraine. The possible options for the Parole legislation improving are listed. The Parole Board of Canada staffing also discussed and the merit base approach suggested. The primary focus is on the Parole decision-making procedures and respective rules, which should ensure the protection the offenders’, victim’s and public safety interest, maintaining the certain balance responding to public expectations and needs.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.016

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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 venueeKNUTSHIRSame topicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207