English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

An intrinsically subjective standard offers us no protection against the risks of arbitrary decisions. In a system with standards such as these, evidence which can convince A of X's guilt will not convince B that X is guilty. Obviously, we can expect neither uniformity nor justice if each judge uses his own criteria. Instead of using subjective standards of proof, such as intimate conviction or the absence of reasonable doubt, I thus put forward a number of objective and demanding standards. They are objective because they do not depend on the whims of a judge, on whether or not a certain judge is strongly convinced of the accused's guilt. They are demanding because we do not wish to find anybody guilty unless we have strong and solid evidence.

Por qué un estándar de prueba subjetivo y ambiguo no es un estándar