Zarys historii nauk kryminalistycznych na ziemiach polskich
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beginning of the history of the criminalistics on the Polish territories is connected with development of this \nscience in invanders countries. One of the first source of the information about this subject are papers written by \nM. G. Żabczyński. Other references are books about forensic medicine written by Ludwik Perzyna and L. K. \nTeichman, who invented method of detecting blood in any material. \n \nDuring inter-war period in Poland, took place the flowering of criminology. The most important were: \nWładystaw Sobolewski (firearms, ballistics) and J. Olbrycht (forensic haematology). For the police the most \nsignificant were development of dactyloscopy, forsenic science and graphology. \n \nAfter WWII a lot of new methods of evidence collection was used. Phonoscopy, polygraphy, osmology, \nentemology are only some of them, which were develop by polish scientist, policemen and prosecutors. \n \nToday polish representatives of the law use most of the methods from the past, but cooperation with other \ncountries is much greater and necessary
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".