MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126232881 · doi:10.21181/kjpc.2025.34.4.495

The feasibility of adopting of a private prosecution system in Korea

2025· article· W7126232881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hoon Jin Cha

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Association of Public Safety and Criminal Justice · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJury Decision Making Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawAdversarial systemPrivate lawCriminal lawCriminal justiceCommon lawLaw enforcementAccountability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminal justice refers to the institutional framework established by society to enforce criminal law. The common law system, adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, is characterized by judge-made precedent, adversarial procedure, and a historical openness to privately initiated prosecutions. Prosecutorial institutions in common law jurisdictions evolved from a system centered on private prosecutions to one in which the state gradually assumed primary responsibility for criminal charges. In contrast, the civil law system—prevalent in continental Europe and in many countries influenced by its legal tradition—is based on comprehensive statutory codes. Under this framework, the state typically exercises exclusive authority over criminal prosecutions, and private prosecutions are rarely permitted. Public prosecutions refers to a system in which criminal proceedings are initiated and controlled by state authorities. The state determines whether to bring charges, what charges are appropriate, and how the case should proceed. Most civil law jurisdictions, as well as many modern common law jurisdictions, adopt this model, emphasizing uniformity, impartiality, and public accountability in the enforcement of criminal law. Private prosecutions, by contrast, is a mechanism through which a private individual or organization initiates criminal proceedings. Although crime constitutes an offense against public order, the private prosecutor gathers evidence, files charges, and conducts the case before the court. This mechanism remains available in certain common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, although the state—primarily the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service—retains authority to take over and continue or terminate such proceedings. Private prosecutions illustrates an alternative method of initiating criminal proceedings that may complement a system based on prosecutorial exclusivity. Its comparative study enhances understanding of how different legal traditions allocate prosecutorial power and ensure access to justice. This study examines the feasibility of adopting elements of a private prosecution system within the public-prosecution framework currently used in Korea.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Association of Public Safety and Criminal JusticeSame topicJury Decision Making ProcessesFrench-language works237,207