text:
Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit USA v. Tarvell Dougla Filing 1109534625
USA v. Tarvell Dougla
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tarvell Jiovon Douglas. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 1 of 18 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15736 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00022-RH-CAS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TARVELL JIOVON DOUGLAS, a.k.a. Tarell Douglas, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (May 11, 2017) Before HULL, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 2 of 18 Tarvell Jiovon Douglas pled guilty to charges stemming from his possession of drugs and a firearm, which were discovered pursuant to a traffic stop and questioning by a law enforcement officer. Douglas moved to suppress the statements he made to the law enforcement officer both before and after he was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). The district court held a hearing and suppressed the pre-Miranda statements that Douglas made but declined to suppress Douglas's post-Miranda statements. In his plea agreement, Douglas reserved the right to appeal the partial denial of his motion to suppress. After thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are taken from the factual proffer accompanying Douglas's guilty plea, testimony elicited at the suppression hearing, and transcripts of the video recording of the traffic stop included in the record. A. The Traffic Violation On February 1, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Douglas was riding in the passenger seat of a car driven by his ex-girlfriend, who was a county probation officer. The driver's thirteen-year-old son was in the back seat. Officer James Martinez, a member of the Tallahassee Police Department's Violent Crime Response Team ("VCRT"), pulled the car over for speeding (going 39 miles per 2 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 3 of 18 hour in a 30-miles-per-hour zone) and a "stop bar violation." Martinez initiated the stop near the parking lot of a Taco Bell restaurant. 1 Officer Martinez walked up to the driver's side of the car where Douglas was a passenger. Officer Martinez and Douglas immediately recognized each other from Officer Martinez's off-duty shifts at nightclubs that Douglas would frequent. Officer Martinez said that he knew Douglas from "different instances ranging from drug investigation to public affray to just standing outside of the club talking to him." During their previous conversations, Officer Martinez would try to "push [Douglas] in the right direction" and tell him to "walk the straight line" and "knock off" the criminal activity he was involved in. Officer Martinez testified that there "were multiple previous occasions where I cut him loose with a warning for misdemeanor possession of marijuana." B. Initial Conversation with Douglas During the Traffic Stop After getting the driver's identification, Officer Martinez walked back to his car and got on his radio. Via the radio, Martinez told fellow officers that he knew Douglas was "out on bond right now" and was "[i]nvolved with drugs." Officer Martinez said he also "glance[d]" at Douglas's prior criminal history. 1 According to Officer Martinez, the VCRT is a "gun suppression unit" that responds to high-crime areas in order to "suppress some of that activity." Members of the VCRT would all work together in the same area of town in order to support each other. Five other officers from the VCRT were also in the Taco Bell parking lot. 3 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 4 of 18 Officer Martinez then called for a K-9 unit, which is standard practice for the VCRT. Within four minutes of the stop, a police K-9 unit arrived and gave an alert for the presence of controlled substances in the car. At that point, officers handcuffed Martinez and the other occupants of the car, which is also standard practice for the police department. Officer Martinez pulled Douglas aside and asked if Douglas had any "weed" on him and, if so, how much. Douglas replied: "That ain't none of their shit. That's [my] shit." At this point, Douglas had not been advised of his Miranda rights. According to Officer Martinez, he had not read Douglas his Miranda rights because their conversation had "nothing to do with interrogation" and was, rather, about Officer Martinez "scolding" Douglas. Officer Martinez testified that this initial conversation was "almost like a scolding of, 'What are you doing? We talked about this before. You're going to get these people in trouble.'" Officer Martinez then told Douglas, "Know you . . . what she does for a living, what you could do to her?" Douglas again replied, "Ain't nothing theirs; all that's mine man." Martinez asked if Douglas was still out on bond, and Douglas affirmed that he was. Douglas then told Martinez that he had a gun in his bag and asked that Martinez "let it slide." Officer Martinez responded, "It can't happen like that my man." Officer Martinez then asked Douglas, "[a]ny guns inside the car?" and 4 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 5 of 18 Douglas indicated there were. According to Officer Martinez, he asked Douglas about weapons strictly for "officer safety reasons." Officer Martinez stated: "[W]e're a gun suppression unit. That's one of the first questions that we will ask." Officer Martinez also stated that the VCRT asks "[a]nybody" they stop about gun possession. C. Miranda Warnings At that point, Officer Martinez told Douglas, "We're gonna do everything official anyways, ok?" and then read Douglas his Miranda rights. Officer Martinez explained that he said this to "ceas[e] our conversations as us knowing each other personally" and mark the beginning of the suspect-officer relationship. After reading Douglas his Miranda rights, Officer Martinez asked Douglas if "everything inside" the car belonged to Douglas. Douglas said that the gun and drugs belonged to him. 2 Officer Martinez asked where the gun was located, and Douglas responded that it was in a bookbag. Officers searched the car and seized a black backpack that contained: (1) a digital scale with some marijuana and white powder residue; (2) plastic sandwich baggies; (3) a mason jar wrapped in duct tape containing three bags of marijuana; 2 Later, however, Douglas claimed that the backpack belonged to his cousin, that Douglas had met his cousin earlier that day, and that he held onto the backpack for his cousin, knowing it contained drugs and a firearm. Douglas said he was on his way to return the backpack to the cousin when they were pulled over. 5 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 6 of 18 and (4) a 9-mm pistol with a round in the chamber and an inserted magazine containing 14 rounds of ammunition. Douglas also had $803 in cash on his person. At the suppression hearing, Officer Martinez stated that at no time during the traffic stop did he "purposely and intentionally plan to get an admission" from Douglas and that he did not purposely and intentionally withhold Miranda warnings. Officer Martinez also denied advising Douglas of his Miranda rights because he got admissions and then wanted to "reinforce those admissions" with further questions. Officer Martinez said that, although he had been involved in "[t]housands" of arrests in his career, he had never before questioned a suspect, then given Miranda warnings, and then questioned the suspect again. Martinez explained that "this was kind of an abnormal circumstance, because I actually knew him . . . . I had talked to Mr. Douglas . . . probably over a hundred times." D. Douglas's Motion to Suppress and the District Court's Ruling A grand jury charged Douglas with: (1) possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(D) ("Count One"); (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) ("Count Two"); and (3) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) ("Count Three."). 6 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 7 of 18 Douglas moved to suppress the statements he made to Officer Martinez both before and after being advised of his Miranda rights. At the May 23, 2016 suppression hearing, the district court heard testimony from Officer Martinez about the incident, viewed portions of the police surveillance video of the incident, and heard argument from both parties. The district court then made a ruling from the bench that it would suppress any statements made before Douglas was read the Miranda warnings but that it would deny the motion to suppress with respect to statements Douglas made after the Miranda warnings. The district court explained that, while "[t]he stop was essentially a pretext to check for guns," police officers are "perfectly entitled" to stop a car for committing a traffic violation, as happened here. The district court explained that, as to the pre-Miranda statements, although Officer Martinez's "subjective intention may have been to follow up on what isn't quite mentoring but some good advice to stay out of criminal activity[,] . . . his subjective motivation is not the standard." Instead, "[t]he standard is what an officer should know; that is, some objective test. . . . Here, the questions and comments made by the officer were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and so that was a violation of Miranda." The district court then turned its attention to Douglas's post-Miranda statements. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S. Ct. 1285 (1985), and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S. Ct. 7 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 8 of 18 2601 (2004), along with this Court's decision in United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2006), the district court explained that a defendant's post-Miranda statements are admissible unless the questioning officer "adopts [a] deliberate twostep strategy: sets out to inquire, gets statements that are un-Mirandized, and then give[s] Miranda warnings, then gets [the admissions] repeated." The district court then made the factual finding that an impermissible two-step strategy did not occur here, stating: Officer Martinez did not do that here. He did not start off intending to violate Miranda, to get statements and then to be able to use them after Mirandizing Mr. Douglas. I credit his description that he had some history with Mr. Douglas; that essentially he got him aside and said, "What are you doing?" It was interrogation that a reasonable officer would understand was likely to elicit an incriminating response, and so it was a questioning within the meaning of Miranda, but it was not a deliberate two-step strategy. ... The defense points to a number of factors that cut toward a finding that there was a deliberate two-part strategy. My job is to analyze all of the facts and to decide -- analyze all of the circumstances and decide whether, in fact, Officer Martinez followed a deliberate twopart strategy. My finding of fact is that he did not. When I mentioned specific facts, it always runs the risk that somebody will think that that was the focus. It's not. But let me tell you one fact that does color my analysis of this. Mr. Douglas asked, "Can we let this one slide?" That kind of statement might be made in just the ordinary law-enforcement-suspect encounter; but, frankly, it seems to me that there is some history between these two, and it hasn't been entirely adversarial. It seems to me completely consistent with Officer Martinez's statement that, "I 8 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 9 of 18 tried to counsel him before to get away from this." And it's consistent with Officer Martinez's statements that he's been around misdemeanor amounts, and he had some discretion, and he cut Mr. Douglas slack. Mr. Douglas was asking for that again. It seems to me that that's a very atypical relationship at the point of this kind of a stop. In these circumstances that led to an atypical interaction, questioning before Miranda warnings were given, different than Officer Martinez routinely does, different from hundreds, thousands of other arrests. So aside from circumstances that are present almost every time -- that is, the defendant is in custody, officers have reason to believe he's committed this crime, they are obviously interested in getting incriminating information -- aside from those circumstances, there's not very much here to suggest that this is a deliberate strategy. The district court then asked if the parties would like it to elaborate further or make any "subsidiary findings." Both parties declined. The district court memorialized its ruling in a written order issued on May 30, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Douglas pled guilty to all three counts of the indictment, pursuant to a written plea agreement. The district court sentenced Douglas to a cumulative 66 months in prison. Douglas timely appealed. On appeal, Douglas only challenges the district court's partial denial of his motion to suppress. II. RELEVANT LAW: ELSTAD, SEIBERT, AND STREET The Fifth Amendment mandates that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. To guard against the risk of a coerced confession in violation of the Constitution's Self9 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 10 of 18 Incrimination Clause, the Supreme Court has concluded that "the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S. Ct. at 1624. Informing a suspect of his or her Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver of those rights generally produces a "virtual ticket of admissibility." Seibert, 542 U.S. at 608-09, 124 S. Ct. at 2608 (plurality opinion). As a general rule, the existence of a pre-Miranda statement does not require the suppression of a post-warning statement that was knowingly and voluntarily made. See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 309, 318, 105 S. Ct. at 1293, 1298. For example, in Elstad, the suspect confessed after being subjected to unwarned custodial interrogation at his house. Id. at 300-01, 315, 105 S. Ct. at 1288-89, 1296. After being read his Miranda rights several hours later at the police station, the suspect waived his rights and made a second full confession. Id. at 301, 105 S. Ct. at 1289. The Supreme Court concluded that the second confession was admissible because it was knowingly and voluntarily made. Id. at 318, 105 S. Ct. at 1298. The Elstad general rule, however, is subject to the Seibert exception, which comes into play when police purposefully withhold Miranda warnings while interrogating a suspect in custody in order to obtain a full confession and then provide him with full warnings and get him to re-confess—the so-called "twostep" or "question first" strategy. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 605-06, 124 S. Ct. at 260610 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 11 of 18 07; Street, 472 F.3d at 1313. Under these circumstances, "suppression of a postwarning confession is required if 'the two-step interrogation technique [is] used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.'" Street, 472 F.3d at 1313-14 (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 622, 124 S. Ct. at 2616 (Kennedy, J., concurring)).3 "That means that if an officer employs a strategy of deliberately questioning an in-custody suspect without any Miranda warnings in order to get a confession, planning to later warn the suspect and get him to repeat his confession, the postwarning confession is inadmissible unless the officer took specific curative steps to ensure that the mid-interrogation warnings achieved the purpose the Miranda decision intended." Id. at 1314. Curative measures are only necessary, however, where the two-step strategy has been used. Id. "Otherwise, the Elstad general rule that post-warning statements are admissible, even where they follow pre-warning statements that are not, governs." Id. In determining whether law enforcement officers impermissibly used a "question first" strategy, this Court will consider the totality of the circumstances, including "the timing, setting and completeness of the prewarning interrogation, the continuity of police personnel and the overlapping content of the pre- and post- 3 As this Court has explained, "[b]ecause Seibert is a plurality decision and Justice Kennedy concurred in the result on the narrowest grounds, it is his concurring opinion that provides the controlling law." Street, 472 F.3d at 1313. 11 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 12 of 18 warning statements." Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir. 2006)). III. DISCUSSION A. Whether the district court erred in applying the Seibert exception The first question we must address here is whether we review the district court's finding that Officer Martinez did not act with the "deliberateness" required to trigger the Seibert exception under a de novo or clear error standard of review. The parties agree that this Court has not explicitly taken a position on this issue. Douglas wishes us to review this issue as a mixed question of law and fact deserving de novo review, and the government responds that it is more correctly a factual question subject to the clear error standard. We need not decide this question today because the government prevails under either standard. The district court did not err in finding that Officer Martinez did not employ an impermissible "two-step" interrogation tactic here. At the suppression hearing, Officer Martinez stated that, at no time during the traffic stop did he "purposely and intentionally plan to get an admission" from Douglas, nor did he purposely and intentionally withhold Miranda warnings. Officer Martinez also denied advising Douglas of his Miranda rights because he got admissions and then wanted to "reinforce those admissions" with further questions. Instead, the record evidence demonstrated that Officer Martinez first spoke to Douglas as a friend or 12 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 13 of 18 acquaintance, giving him a "scolding" about having drugs and a firearm. Officer Martinez then transitioned to an officer-suspect relationship by telling Douglas, "[w]e're gonna do everything official anyways, ok?" and reading Douglas his Miranda rights. These circumstances stand in stark contrast to the facts in Seibert: Having been awakened at 3:00 a.m., the suspect in Seibert was taken to the police station and systematically interrogated for 30 to 40 minutes without Miranda warnings about her role in a terrible crime resulting in a young teenager's death. 542 U.S. at 604-05, 124 S. Ct. at 2605-06. The police officer conducting the interrogation made a "conscious decision" to withhold Miranda warnings and resorted to the interrogation technique he had been taught: question first, then give warnings, and then repeat the question to re-elicit an incriminating statement. Id. at 604-06, 124 S. Ct. at 2606. After the suspect made a crucial admission, she was given a break, Miranda warnings were administered, and the suspect was immediately confronted with her pre-warning statements in order to extract the more elaborate conforming admissions. Id. at 605, 124 S. Ct. at 2606. By contrast, there is no record evidence here to suggest that the Tallahassee Police Department had protocols, customs, or training that required officers to use a deliberate two-step interrogation technique. Indeed, Officer Martinez testified that, of the "thousands" of arrests he had made in his career, this was the only 13 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 14 of 18 incident where he questioned first, then gave warnings, and then questioned again. He testified that the only reason he did so in this case was the "abnormal" circumstance of previously knowing and having a mentoring-type relationship with the suspect, Douglas. Further, unlike the police officers in Seibert, the district court credited Officer Martinez's testimony that he did not "employ[] a strategy of deliberately questioning [Douglas] without any Miranda warnings in order to get a confession, planning to later warn the suspect and get him to repeat his confession." See Street, 472 F.3d at 1314. The record does not support Douglas's contention that Martinez "exploit[ed]" and "[c]apitaliz[ed]" on his friendship with Douglas in order to "induce[]" Douglas to make an unwarned confession. Rather, Officer Martinez expressly testified that he did not intentionally withhold Miranda warnings in order to get admissions from Douglas. And the district court found Officer Martinez's testimony credible. Under the totality of the circumstances here, there is nothing to suggest that Officer Martinez used a "question first" strategy "in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning." See Street, 472 F.3d at 1313 (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 622, 124 S. Ct. at 2616). Because the district court did not err in determining that the two-step strategy was not used here, the Elstad general rule applies. See id. 14 Case: 16-15736 B. Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 15 of 18 Whether Douglas's post-Miranda admissions were knowing and voluntary under Elstad Under Elstad, Douglas's post-Miranda statements were admissible so long as they were knowingly and voluntarily made. See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318, 105 S. Ct. at 1298. In making this determination, "courts are not to presume that the existence of [an] earlier unwarned statement compelled the defendant to give another one, but instead should assume that ordinarily giving proper Miranda warnings removes the effect of any conditions requiring suppression of the unwarned statement." Street, 472 F.3d at 1313. While giving deference to the district court's factual findings, this Court reviews the voluntariness of a confession de novo. United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2010). The parties appear to agree that the district court never made an explicit finding as to whether Douglas's post-warning statements were knowingly and voluntarily made. Our review of the record confirms this fact. However, the record also reveals that the district court was well aware of the Elstad ruling, referencing that case's "general rule" three times in its statements during the hearing. That awareness, combined with its dispositive ruling denying Douglas's motion to suppress as to the post-Miranda statements, demonstrates that the district court made an implicit finding that Douglas's post-Miranda statements were made both knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1154 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating that this Court may infer "from a district 15 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 16 of 18 court's explicit factual findings and conclusion implied factual findings that are consistent with its judgment although unstated"); see also United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir. 2007) (inferring implied factual findings consistent with the judgment under review). Thus, we reject Douglas's argument that the district court "misinterpret[ed]" the correct legal standard. We now turn to the question of whether, all circumstances considered, Douglas's post-warning statements were voluntary and, therefore, admissible. See Lall, 607 F.3d at 1285. Douglas argues, for the first time on appeal, that his postwarning statements were not voluntary. 4 Accordingly, we review this issue for plain error only. United States v. Grimes, 142 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1998). This Court focuses its voluntariness inquiry on whether the defendant was coerced into making the statements at issue. United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1295 (11th Cir. 2005). That is, "relinquishment of the right [against selfincrimination] must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a 4 As the government points out, Douglas did not address the voluntariness of his postwarning statements in his written suppression motion or at the suppression hearing. Instead, despite the government's noting in its response that Douglas was "not challenging whether his Miranda waiver was intelligent and voluntary," defense counsel's presentation at the hearing focused on the applicability of the Seibert exception. What's more, defense counsel affirmatively stated at the hearing that he read the government's brief as "saying that the court needs to make a decision as to the voluntariness of the statement; and I would submit to the court that that's exactly what the Miranda decision . . . says that's not what the court should be doing." Finally, after a lengthy explanation of its ruling on the motion, the district court asked if there were any further explanation or "subsidiary findings" the parties would like it to make, and defense counsel declined. 16 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 17 of 18 free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception." Id. (quoting United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1475 (11th Cir. 1992)). We determine whether a statement was made voluntarily, and thus was "the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice," by examining the totality of the circumstances. Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1252 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 890 F.2d 355, 360 (11th Cir. 1989)). Among the factors we consider are "the defendant's intelligence, the length of his detention, the nature of the interrogation, the use of any physical force against him, or the use of any promises or inducements by police." Id. at 1253; see also Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1295-96 ("Sufficiently coercive conduct normally involves subjecting the accused to an exhaustingly long interrogation, the application of physical force or the threat to do so, or the making of a promise that induces a confession."). Here, we readily conclude that the district court did not plainly err in its implicit finding that Douglas's waiver of his Miranda rights and his post-warning statements were given knowingly and voluntarily under the totality of the circumstances.5 Douglas had not been detained for a long period of time when he gave his post-warning statements, Officer Martinez did not use physical force against him, and there was no evidence that the interrogation was hostile or 5 Given this determination, we need not and do not address the government's additional arguments that Douglas waived the voluntariness issue by failing to preserve it in his written plea agreement or that Douglas invited the error. 17 Case: 16-15736 Date Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 18 of 18 threatening, or that the police offered or promised anything to Douglas. See Hubbard, 317 F.3d at 1253. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that Douglas's postMiranda statements were anything but "the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice." See id. at 1252. Contrary to Douglas's arguments on appeal, there is nothing about his being questioned with other police officers nearby that suggests undue coercion, nor did Officer Martinez make "a thinly disguised threat to prosecute his girlfriend and her son if [Douglas] did not take responsibility for any drugs and concealed firearms. Rather, the record reveals that Douglas first admitted owning the drugs and firearm before Officer Martinez admonished him: "Know you . . . what she does for a living, what you could do to her?" Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Douglas's motion to suppress as to his post-Miranda statements. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in its partial denial of Douglas's motion to suppress, and we affirm Douglas's convictions and sentence. AFFIRMED. 18


"From the perspective of the Ukrainian theology's development in Ukraine, this recognition can be considered as a breakthrough as nothing like this has happened before"
On December 6, 2016, a remarkable event in the life of Ukrainian theologians happened.
At the meeting of the Commission on State recognition of academic degrees and titles at the Ministry of Education and Science, a decision was made to recognize a diploma of doctor of theology. In Ukraine first recognized by the state, doctor of theology appeared. The degree was acquired by Maria Horiacha, who defended her doctoral thesis in 2012 at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium). It is pleasant to note that Ms. Maria occupies the position of Projects and Programs Manager at the Institute of Ecumenical Studies. We decided to ask her about the preparational process of recognition and how it feels to be the first doctor of sciences.
- Could you please tell us more about the preparation to diploma recognition: how much time have you paid it? Which documents had to be prepared?
- Anyone who studied abroad and received a diploma of a foreign sample understands that upon returning back to Ukraine he or she should take care of their diploma nostrification in their native country. I faced this too, as soon as I started my work in an academic environment. But at that time I had not seen any possibility for such recognition. Back then it was hard to imagine such a possibility because in Ukraine there was not even the idea of such a title as a doctor of theology. If I tried to nostrify my diploma at the time, I would have had to find some compromise and give up prospects of receiving a Doctor of Theology. I should have had to agree to a more or less acceptable substitute of the title such as Doctor of historical, or philosophical, or other sciences. Therefore, such prospect was totally unattractive, not to say unacceptable for me. Just after the adoption in 2014 of a new "Law on Higher Education", a hope for recognition of theological diplomas appeared. However, I had to wait another 2 years for the real opportunity until the Commission of diplomas recognition began to function. As soon as I heard about the establishment and first meeting of the Commission, I immediately began preparing documents for my attestation case. The package of documents was fairly standard: copies of diplomas with their translations, a copy of the thesis, copies of published articles and a request from the place of work. So in a week I managed to collect everything and sent it to Kyiv. Then I had to wait 2 months for the Commission's decision.
- What difficulties have you encountered during the preparation?
I did not have any specific difficulties. It was just necessary to collect and send to the Ministry of Education and Science the documents, and then just wait. However, since the Commission had started working recently, and mechanisms of its work still were being developed, during the review of my certification case a need appeared to supplement it also with an auto synopsis in Ukrainian. So I had in a short time to make a detailed presentation of the main findings of my dissertation.
- How do you feel in the new role?
Of course, it was nice during the last few days to receive such an incredible amount of greetings and realize the solidarity and support of my colleagues and friends, their sincere joy for me about this decision of the Commission. But I can not say that something drastically has changed in my life. In fact, the Commission's decision was only a recognition of that reality, which is almost five years old. As yesterday, same now I have usual working days, or even quite intense because of the approaching end of the year there is always a lot of work to do. So there is no time to rest on laurels. There is still a lot of projects waiting for their implementation.
- For you personally, what does this recognition by MES mean?
I think that for me personally, this recognition will bring only more work and perhaps some new responsibilities and challenges will be added. However, from the prospect of development of Ukrainian theology in Ukraine, this recognition can be considered a breakthrough because nothing like this has happened before. The situation with theology resembled a vicious circle: on the one hand, the Ukrainian state did not recognize foreign diplomas in theology, nor offered any mechanism for their recognition, on the other hand, Ukraine had no chance to get a diploma of a higher degree in theology (after bachelor and master). Scholars were as if in some kind of ghetto, absolutely beyond the capacity of normal academic development. Since the beginning of work of the Commission, it seems like the ice was broken, and there is a hope that soon we will have enough of our own candidates and doctors of theology to create our own specialized boards and produce Ukrainian candidates and doctors of theology with state diplomas. It virtually eliminates that absurd situation that existed until recently, when diplomas of Ukrainian theologians were recognized by leading universities around the world except for their own state. So I want to congratulate the work of the Commission and wish it fruitful proceedings and to all the theologians - successful recognition of their diplomas, new achievements and accomplishments.


McAfee and Reny (1992) have given a necessary and sufficient condition for full surplus extraction in models with a continuum of types. We interpret their condition as significantly stronger version of the requirement of injectiveness of the function mapping abstract types into beliefs and prove that their condition is satisfied by a generic set of model specifications. Our analysis involves an extension of the classical embedding theorem for continuous functions. Our proof does not rely on finite approximations and the topology on beliefs that we use is compatible with strategic continuity.


text:
Q: Youtube api channel selector Now you can create more than one Youtube channel. In my Android app I need to let user select one of these channels and work with it (get subscription videos, etc..).
I'd like to emulate the official Youtube app where you can choose one of my channels that I have created in my Youtube account.
EDIT:
Finally I solved the problem with the Ibrahim suggestion. In a webview I used the oAuth2 authentication like this:
https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/auth?client_id=CLIENT_ID&redirect_uri=urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob&scope=https://www.googleapis.com/auth/youtube&response_type=code&access_type=offline
Then receive the token to use to get the access_token:
String url = "https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token";

List<NameValuePair> nameValuePairs = new ArrayList<NameValuePair>(5);

nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("grant_type", "authorization_code"));
nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("client_id", YoutubeBase.CLIENT_ID_NUMBER));
nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("client_secret", YoutubeBase.CLIENT_SECRET));
nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("code", code));
nameValuePairs.add(new BasicNameValuePair("redirect_uri", YoutubeBase.REDIRECT_URI));
response = RestClient.postGoogleData(url, nameValuePairs);

And finally use the access_token to call to Youtube Data API:
https://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/default?v2.1&access_token=" + accesToken

I've used with API v2 but works with v3.

A: There is no Page selector built-in with the current Android native OAuth2 client. Till that is built, the only workaround is that, doing the web version Oauth2, get the token, and use that token in your requests later on.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Как изменить номера меток в файле .jsonl и сохранить файле? Есть числа из списка предсказаний.
Как я могу изменить значения в метке на значения из списка?
predictions = [0, 1...0, 1]
{"idx": 0, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 0, "answers": [{"idx": 0, "label": 0}, {"idx": 1, "label": 0}, {"idx": 2, "label": 0}, {"idx": 3, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 1, "answers": [{"idx": 4, "label": 0}, {"idx": 5, "label": 0}, {"idx": 6, "label": 0}, {"idx": 7, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 2, "answers": [{"idx": 8, "label": 1}, {"idx": 9, "label": 0}, {"idx": 10, "label": 0}, {"idx": 11, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 3, "answers": [{"idx": 12, "label": 0}, {"idx": 13, "label": 0}, {"idx": 14, "label": 0}, {"idx": 15, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 4, "answers": [{"idx": 16, "label": 0}, {"idx": 17, "label": 0}, {"idx": 18, "label": 0}, {"idx": 19, "label": 0}, {"idx": 20, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 5, "answers": [{"idx": 21, "label": 0}, {"idx": 22, "label": 0}, {"idx": 23, "label": 0}, {"idx": 24, "label": 0}, {"idx": 25, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 6, "answers": [{"idx": 26, "label": 0}, {"idx": 27, "label": 0}, {"idx": 28, "label": 0}, {"idx": 29, "label": 0}, {"idx": 30, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 7, "answers": [{"idx": 31, "label": 0}, {"idx": 32, "label": 0}, {"idx": 33, "label": 0}, {"idx": 34, "label": 0}, {"idx": 35, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 8, "answers": [{"idx": 36, "label": 0}, {"idx": 37, "label": 0}, {"idx": 38, "label": 0}, {"idx": 39, "label": 0}, {"idx": 40, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 9, "answers": [{"idx": 41, "label": 0}, {"idx": 42, "label": 0}, {"idx": 43, "label": 0}, {"idx": 44, "label": 0}, {"idx": 45, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 1, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 10, "answers": [{"idx": 46, "label": 0}, {"idx": 47, "label": 0}, {"idx": 48, "label": 0}, {"idx": 49, "label": 0}, {"idx": 50, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 11, "answers": [{"idx": 51, "label": 0}, {"idx": 52, "label": 0}, {"idx": 53, "label": 0}, {"idx": 54, "label": 0}, {"idx": 55, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 2, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 12, "answers": [{"idx": 56, "label": 0}, {"idx": 57, "label": 0}, {"idx": 58, "label": 0}, {"idx": 59, "label": 0}, {"idx": 60, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 13, "answers": [{"idx": 61, "label": 0}, {"idx": 62, "label": 0}, {"idx": 63, "label": 0}, {"idx": 64, "label": 0}, {"idx": 65, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 14, "answers": [{"idx": 66, "label": 0}, {"idx": 67, "label": 0}, {"idx": 68, "label": 0}, {"idx": 69, "label": 0}, {"idx": 70, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 15, "answers": [{"idx": 71, "label": 0}, {"idx": 72, "label": 0}, {"idx": 73, "label": 0}, {"idx": 74, "label": 0}, {"idx": 75, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 16, "answers": [{"idx": 76, "label": 0}, {"idx": 77, "label": 0}, {"idx": 78, "label": 0}, {"idx": 79, "label": 0}, {"idx": 80, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 17, "answers": [{"idx": 81, "label": 0}, {"idx": 82, "label": 0}, {"idx": 83, "label": 0}, {"idx": 84, "label": 0}, {"idx": 85, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 18, "answers": [{"idx": 86, "label": 0}, {"idx": 87, "label": 0}, {"idx": 88, "label": 0}, {"idx": 89, "label": 0}, {"idx": 90, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 19, "answers": [{"idx": 91, "label": 0}, {"idx": 92, "label": 0}, {"idx": 93, "label": 0}, {"idx": 94, "label": 0}, {"idx": 95, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 3, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 20, "answers": [{"idx": 96, "label": 0}, {"idx": 97, "label": 0}, {"idx": 98, "label": 0}, {"idx": 99, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 21, "answers": [{"idx": 100, "label": 0}, {"idx": 101, "label": 0}, {"idx": 102, "label": 0}, {"idx": 103, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 22, "answers": [{"idx": 104, "label": 0}, {"idx": 105, "label": 0}, {"idx": 106, "label": 0}, {"idx": 107, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 23, "answers": [{"idx": 108, "label": 0}, {"idx": 109, "label": 0}, {"idx": 110, "label": 0}, {"idx": 111, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 24, "answers": [{"idx": 112, "label": 0}, {"idx": 113, "label": 0}, {"idx": 114, "label": 0}, {"idx": 115, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 25, "answers": [{"idx": 116, "label": 0}, {"idx": 117, "label": 0}, {"idx": 118, "label": 0}, {"idx": 119, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 26, "answers": [{"idx": 120, "label": 0}, {"idx": 121, "label": 0}, {"idx": 122, "label": 0}, {"idx": 123, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 27, "answers": [{"idx": 124, "label": 0}, {"idx": 125, "label": 0}, {"idx": 126, "label": 0}, {"idx": 127, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 4, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 28, "answers": [{"idx": 128, "label": 1}, {"idx": 129, "label": 1}, {"idx": 130, "label": 1}, {"idx": 131, "label": 1}, {"idx": 132, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 29, "answers": [{"idx": 133, "label": 0}, {"idx": 134, "label": 1}, {"idx": 135, "label": 1}, {"idx": 136, "label": 0}, {"idx": 137, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 30, "answers": [{"idx": 138, "label": 0}, {"idx": 139, "label": 0}, {"idx": 140, "label": 1}, {"idx": 141, "label": 0}, {"idx": 142, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 31, "answers": [{"idx": 143, "label": 0}, {"idx": 144, "label": 0}, {"idx": 145, "label": 0}, {"idx": 146, "label": 0}, {"idx": 147, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 32, "answers": [{"idx": 148, "label": 0}, {"idx": 149, "label": 0}, {"idx": 150, "label": 0}, {"idx": 151, "label": 0}, {"idx": 152, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 33, "answers": [{"idx": 153, "label": 0}, {"idx": 154, "label": 1}, {"idx": 155, "label": 1}, {"idx": 156, "label": 1}, {"idx": 157, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 34, "answers": [{"idx": 158, "label": 0}, {"idx": 159, "label": 0}, {"idx": 160, "label": 0}, {"idx": 161, "label": 0}, {"idx": 162, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 35, "answers": [{"idx": 163, "label": 0}, {"idx": 164, "label": 1}, {"idx": 165, "label": 1}, {"idx": 166, "label": 0}, {"idx": 167, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 36, "answers": [{"idx": 168, "label": 0}, {"idx": 169, "label": 0}, {"idx": 170, "label": 1}, {"idx": 171, "label": 0}, {"idx": 172, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 37, "answers": [{"idx": 173, "label": 1}, {"idx": 174, "label": 0}, {"idx": 175, "label": 0}, {"idx": 176, "label": 0}, {"idx": 177, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 38, "answers": [{"idx": 178, "label": 0}, {"idx": 179, "label": 1}, {"idx": 180, "label": 1}, {"idx": 181, "label": 0}, {"idx": 182, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 39, "answers": [{"idx": 183, "label": 1}, {"idx": 184, "label": 1}, {"idx": 185, "label": 1}, {"idx": 186, "label": 0}, {"idx": 187, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 40, "answers": [{"idx": 188, "label": 0}, {"idx": 189, "label": 0}, {"idx": 190, "label": 1}, {"idx": 191, "label": 0}, {"idx": 192, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 41, "answers": [{"idx": 193, "label": 0}, {"idx": 194, "label": 0}, {"idx": 195, "label": 0}, {"idx": 196, "label": 0}, {"idx": 197, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 5, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 42, "answers": [{"idx": 198, "label": 0}, {"idx": 199, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 43, "answers": [{"idx": 200, "label": 1}, {"idx": 201, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 44, "answers": [{"idx": 202, "label": 0}, {"idx": 203, "label": 0}, {"idx": 204, "label": 0}, {"idx": 205, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 45, "answers": [{"idx": 206, "label": 0}, {"idx": 207, "label": 0}, {"idx": 208, "label": 0}, {"idx": 209, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 46, "answers": [{"idx": 210, "label": 0}, {"idx": 211, "label": 0}, {"idx": 212, "label": 0}, {"idx": 213, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 47, "answers": [{"idx": 214, "label": 0}, {"idx": 215, "label": 0}, {"idx": 216, "label": 0}, {"idx": 217, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 48, "answers": [{"idx": 218, "label": 0}, {"idx": 219, "label": 0}, {"idx": 220, "label": 0}, {"idx": 221, "label": 0}, {"idx": 222, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 49, "answers": [{"idx": 223, "label": 1}, {"idx": 224, "label": 0}, {"idx": 225, "label": 0}, {"idx": 226, "label": 0}, {"idx": 227, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 50, "answers": [{"idx": 228, "label": 1}, {"idx": 229, "label": 0}, {"idx": 230, "label": 0}, {"idx": 231, "label": 0}, {"idx": 232, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 51, "answers": [{"idx": 233, "label": 0}, {"idx": 234, "label": 0}, {"idx": 235, "label": 0}, {"idx": 236, "label": 0}, {"idx": 237, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 52, "answers": [{"idx": 238, "label": 1}, {"idx": 239, "label": 0}, {"idx": 240, "label": 0}, {"idx": 241, "label": 0}, {"idx": 242, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 53, "answers": [{"idx": 243, "label": 0}, {"idx": 244, "label": 0}, {"idx": 245, "label": 0}, {"idx": 246, "label": 1}, {"idx": 247, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 54, "answers": [{"idx": 248, "label": 1}, {"idx": 249, "label": 1}, {"idx": 250, "label": 1}, {"idx": 251, "label": 1}, {"idx": 252, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 55, "answers": [{"idx": 253, "label": 0}, {"idx": 254, "label": 0}, {"idx": 255, "label": 0}, {"idx": 256, "label": 0}, {"idx": 257, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 6, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 56, "answers": [{"idx": 258, "label": 1}, {"idx": 259, "label": 0}, {"idx": 260, "label": 1}, {"idx": 261, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 57, "answers": [{"idx": 262, "label": 1}, {"idx": 263, "label": 1}, {"idx": 264, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 58, "answers": [{"idx": 265, "label": 1}, {"idx": 266, "label": 1}, {"idx": 267, "label": 1}, {"idx": 268, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 59, "answers": [{"idx": 269, "label": 1}, {"idx": 270, "label": 1}, {"idx": 271, "label": 1}, {"idx": 272, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 60, "answers": [{"idx": 273, "label": 1}, {"idx": 274, "label": 1}, {"idx": 275, "label": 1}, {"idx": 276, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 61, "answers": [{"idx": 277, "label": 1}, {"idx": 278, "label": 1}, {"idx": 279, "label": 1}, {"idx": 280, "label": 1}]}]}}
{"idx": 7, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 62, "answers": [{"idx": 281, "label": 0}, {"idx": 282, "label": 1}, {"idx": 283, "label": 1}, {"idx": 284, "label": 1}, {"idx": 285, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 63, "answers": [{"idx": 286, "label": 0}, {"idx": 287, "label": 0}, {"idx": 288, "label": 0}, {"idx": 289, "label": 0}, {"idx": 290, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 64, "answers": [{"idx": 291, "label": 0}, {"idx": 292, "label": 0}, {"idx": 293, "label": 0}, {"idx": 294, "label": 0}, {"idx": 295, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 65, "answers": [{"idx": 296, "label": 1}, {"idx": 297, "label": 1}, {"idx": 298, "label": 1}, {"idx": 299, "label": 1}, {"idx": 300, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 66, "answers": [{"idx": 301, "label": 1}, {"idx": 302, "label": 0}, {"idx": 303, "label": 1}, {"idx": 304, "label": 0}, {"idx": 305, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 67, "answers": [{"idx": 306, "label": 0}, {"idx": 307, "label": 0}, {"idx": 308, "label": 0}, {"idx": 309, "label": 1}, {"idx": 310, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 68, "answers": [{"idx": 311, "label": 0}, {"idx": 312, "label": 0}, {"idx": 313, "label": 0}, {"idx": 314, "label": 1}, {"idx": 315, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 69, "answers": [{"idx": 316, "label": 1}, {"idx": 317, "label": 1}, {"idx": 318, "label": 1}, {"idx": 319, "label": 1}, {"idx": 320, "label": 1}]}]}}
{"idx": 8, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 70, "answers": [{"idx": 321, "label": 0}, {"idx": 322, "label": 0}, {"idx": 323, "label": 0}, {"idx": 324, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 71, "answers": [{"idx": 325, "label": 1}, {"idx": 326, "label": 0}, {"idx": 327, "label": 0}, {"idx": 328, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 72, "answers": [{"idx": 329, "label": 0}, {"idx": 330, "label": 0}, {"idx": 331, "label": 0}, {"idx": 332, "label": 0}, {"idx": 333, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 73, "answers": [{"idx": 334, "label": 0}, {"idx": 335, "label": 0}, {"idx": 336, "label": 0}, {"idx": 337, "label": 0}, {"idx": 338, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 74, "answers": [{"idx": 339, "label": 0}, {"idx": 340, "label": 0}, {"idx": 341, "label": 0}, {"idx": 342, "label": 1}, {"idx": 343, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 75, "answers": [{"idx": 344, "label": 1}, {"idx": 345, "label": 1}, {"idx": 346, "label": 0}, {"idx": 347, "label": 0}, {"idx": 348, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 76, "answers": [{"idx": 349, "label": 0}, {"idx": 350, "label": 1}, {"idx": 351, "label": 0}, {"idx": 352, "label": 0}, {"idx": 353, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 77, "answers": [{"idx": 354, "label": 0}, {"idx": 355, "label": 0}, {"idx": 356, "label": 0}, {"idx": 357, "label": 1}, {"idx": 358, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 78, "answers": [{"idx": 359, "label": 0}, {"idx": 360, "label": 1}, {"idx": 361, "label": 0}, {"idx": 362, "label": 0}, {"idx": 363, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 79, "answers": [{"idx": 364, "label": 0}, {"idx": 365, "label": 0}, {"idx": 366, "label": 0}, {"idx": 367, "label": 0}, {"idx": 368, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 80, "answers": [{"idx": 369, "label": 0}, {"idx": 370, "label": 0}, {"idx": 371, "label": 0}, {"idx": 372, "label": 0}, {"idx": 373, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 81, "answers": [{"idx": 374, "label": 0}, {"idx": 375, "label": 0}, {"idx": 376, "label": 0}, {"idx": 377, "label": 0}, {"idx": 378, "label": 0}]}]}}
{"idx": 9, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 82, "answers": [{"idx": 379, "label": 0}, {"idx": 380, "label": 0}, {"idx": 381, "label": 0}, {"idx": 382, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 83, "answers": [{"idx": 383, "label": 0}, {"idx": 384, "label": 1}, {"idx": 385, "label": 0}, {"idx": 386, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 84, "answers": [{"idx": 387, "label": 0}, {"idx": 388, "label": 0}, {"idx": 389, "label": 0}, {"idx": 390, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 85, "answers": [{"idx": 391, "label": 1}, {"idx": 392, "label": 0}, {"idx": 393, "label": 1}, {"idx": 394, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 86, "answers": [{"idx": 395, "label": 0}, {"idx": 396, "label": 0}, {"idx": 397, "label": 0}, {"idx": 398, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 87, "answers": [{"idx": 399, "label": 0}, {"idx": 400, "label": 0}, {"idx": 401, "label": 0}, {"idx": 402, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 88, "answers": [{"idx": 403, "label": 0}, {"idx": 404, "label": 0}, {"idx": 405, "label": 1}, {"idx": 406, "label": 0}]}, {"idx": 89, "answers": [{"idx": 407, "label": 0}, {"idx": 408, "label": 0}, {"idx": 409, "label": 0}, {"idx": 410, "label": 1}]}]}}

Что мне надо получить.
Допустим  у меня есть список с единицами pred = [1, 1...1, 1], где элементов столько же, сколько и label и цифр рядом с ними, это гарантируется, тогда мне надо заменить цифры в label цифрами из списка:
{"idx": 0, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 0, "answers": [{"idx": 0, "label": 1}, {"idx": 1, "label": 1}, {"idx": 2, "label": 1}, {"idx": 3, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 1, "answers": [{"idx": 4, "label": 1}, {"idx": 5, "label": 1}, {"idx": 6, "label": 1}, {"idx": 7, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 2, "answers": [{"idx": 8, "label": 1}, {"idx": 9, "label": 1}, {"idx": 10, "label": 1}, {"idx": 11, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 3, "answers": [{"idx": 12, "label": 1}, {"idx": 13, "label": 1}, {"idx": 14, "label": 1}, {"idx": 15, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 4, "answers": [{"idx": 16, "label": 1}, {"idx": 17, "label": 1}, {"idx": 18, "label": 1}, {"idx": 19, "label": 1}, {"idx": 20, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 5, "answers": [{"idx": 21, "label": 1}, {"idx": 22, "label": 1}, {"idx": 23, "label": 1}, {"idx": 24, "label": 1}, {"idx": 25, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 6, "answers": [{"idx": 26, "label": 1}, {"idx": 27, "label": 1}, {"idx": 28, "label": 1}, {"idx": 29, "label": 1}, {"idx": 30, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 7, "answers": [{"idx": 31, "label": 1}, {"idx": 32, "label": 1}, {"idx": 33, "label": 1}, {"idx": 34, "label": 1}, {"idx": 35, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 8, "answers": [{"idx": 36, "label": 1}, {"idx": 37, "label": 1}, {"idx": 38, "label": 1}, {"idx": 39, "label": 1}, {"idx": 40, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 9, "answers": [{"idx": 41, "label": 1}, {"idx": 42, "label": 1}, {"idx": 43, "label": 1}, {"idx": 44, "label": 1}, {"idx": 45, "label": 1}]}]}}
{"idx": 1, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 10, "answers": [{"idx": 46, "label": 1}, {"idx": 47, "label": 1}, {"idx": 48, "label": 1}, {"idx": 49, "label": 1}, {"idx": 50, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 11, "answers": [{"idx": 51, "label": 1}, {"idx": 52, "label": 1}, {"idx": 53, "label": 1}, {"idx": 54, "label": 1}, {"idx": 55, "label": 1}]}]}}
{"idx": 2, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 12, "answers": [{"idx": 56, "label": 1}, {"idx": 57, "label": 1}, {"idx": 58, "label": 1}, {"idx": 59, "label": 1}, {"idx": 60, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 13, "answers": [{"idx": 61, "label": 1}, {"idx": 62, "label": 1}, {"idx": 63, "label": 1}, {"idx": 64, "label": 1}, {"idx": 65, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 14, "answers": [{"idx": 66, "label": 1}, {"idx": 67, "label": 1}, {"idx": 68, "label": 1}, {"idx": 69, "label": 1}, {"idx": 70, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 15, "answers": [{"idx": 71, "label": 1}, {"idx": 72, "label": 1}, {"idx": 73, "label": 1}, {"idx": 74, "label": 1}, {"idx": 75, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 16, "answers": [{"idx": 76, "label": 1}, {"idx": 77, "label": 1}, {"idx": 78, "label": 1}, {"idx": 79, "label": 1}, {"idx": 80, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 17, "answers": [{"idx": 81, "label": 1}, {"idx": 82, "label": 1}, {"idx": 83, "label": 1}, {"idx": 84, "label": 1}, {"idx": 85, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 18, "answers": [{"idx": 86, "label": 1}, {"idx": 87, "label": 1}, {"idx": 88, "label": 1}, {"idx": 89, "label": 1}, {"idx": 90, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 19, "answers": [{"idx": 91, "label": 1}, {"idx": 92, "label": 1}, {"idx": 93, "label": 1}, {"idx": 94, "label": 1}, {"idx": 95, "label": 1}]}]}}
{"idx": 3, "passage": {"questions": [{"idx": 20, "answers": [{"idx": 96, "label": 1}, {"idx": 97, "label": 1}, {"idx": 98, "label": 1}, {"idx": 99, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 21, "answers": [{"idx": 100, "label": 1}, {"idx": 101, "label": 1}, {"idx": 102, "label": 1}, {"idx": 103, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 22, "answers": [{"idx": 104, "label": 1}, {"idx": 105, "label": 1}, {"idx": 106, "label": 1}, {"idx": 107, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 23, "answers": [{"idx": 108, "label": 1}, {"idx": 109, "label": 1}, {"idx": 110, "label": 1}, {"idx": 111, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 24, "answers": [{"idx": 112, "label": 1}, {"idx": 113, "label": 1}, {"idx": 114, "label": 1}, {"idx": 115, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 25, "answers": [{"idx": 116, "label": 1}, {"idx": 117, "label": 1}, {"idx": 118, "label": 1}, {"idx": 119, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 26, "answers": [{"idx": 120, "label": 1}, {"idx": 121, "label": 1}, {"idx": 122, "label": 1}, {"idx": 123, "label": 1}]}, {"idx": 27, "answers": [{"idx": 124, "label": 1}, {"idx": 125, "label": 1}, {"idx": 126, "label": 1}, {"idx": 127, "label": 1}]}]}}

Вот блок кода где я парсю файл и записываю туда значения, только теперь туда надо записать значения из списка:
with open('test.jsonl',encoding='utf8') as f:
    data = [json.loads(line) for line in f]

# walk the structure and change the labels
for item in data:
    for q in item['passage']['questions']:
        for a in q['answers']:
            a['label'] = 1

A: Воспользуйтесь модулем dpath:
import dpath.util as dpu  # pip install dpath

for i in range(len(data)):
    dpu.set(data[i], "/**/label", predictions[i])


Sabine started her career in international sales and marketing for a leading multinational manufacturer and sales organisation in Austria.
Strongly interested in and passionate about human resources, Sabine gradually moved on to HR topics and finally took up the position of an HR and organisational development manager for an Austrian bank.
As internal consultant for middle and senior managers as well as the executive board her focus lay in recruitment, career and talent management, leadership development and change management.
Love made her leave Austria for France, where she started to work as a consultant and trainer in the field of assessment and skills development support to HR professionals and decision makers. Today Sabine works as a professional coach, consultant and trainer - committed to helping people towards personal growth and sustainable change that leads to organisational transformation.
"Mindsight" by Daniel J. Siegel and "True (Sort of)" by Katherine Hannigan - a book which I just read with my daughter - what a lovely story full of heart to share together.
My friend Helga, who faces her life with an incredible force and vigour in spite of her severe illness.
From the film I just saw on French TV last night: "You make me want to be a better man" from As good as it gets with Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt.
Whenever I see and feel that I can inspire people to understand and do things differently to move forwards.
Our kitten Mimi and anybody who is able to laugh about him - or herself.
Up to charming Normandy and down the Atlantic coast of France.
My computer, a pile of project related papers, post-its in different colours, the last drawings by my children, a few inspiring postcards I received from friends.
I go for a bicycle ride or a walk in nature and I meditate.
My grandfather whom I have never known. Isabelle Filliozat, my brother.
Anywhere on the top of a mountain or on the water (river, lake, sea).


text:
The Patriot on Sunday Balanced & Fair
Vacancies & Tenders
Trade union leaders captured by business relationships
SHARE | Monday, 12 June 2017	| By Adam Phetlhe
In the recent past, trade unions have shown signs of sleeping on the same bed with historical and traditional foes – business. The reason thrown around is that partnering with business eases socio-economic challenges faced by their members. On the surface, this argument appears credible and convincing. But digging deep into these business ventures suggest that trade union leaders are the major beneficiaries while the rank and file are fed crumps and left-overs to keep them silent, subservient and obedient. It becomes a veiled oppression and exploitation executed in the reserve. In this article, we look at the actual capture and its consequences. Trade union capture by businesses is no different from state capture which has taken politics by storm here and elsewhere for as long as one can remember. At the end of the day, the result of state or business capture is what matters the most – personal and illicit benefit enabled by either holding a powerful political or union position. The General Secretary of the South African Communist Party Blade Nzimande is quoted by webmail.co.za to have said that "There was strong evidence that trade unions were also being captured by the businesses that they were meant to be keeping in check….There is a glut of a wide range of financed products that are not only marketed by corporations engaged in hyper competition. Promoting their interests, those products are also marketed by some union leaders who have been captured in one way or another or have established mutual interests with those corporations".
SEE ALSO: COMMENTARY: Masisi should ignore Khama, fire Ramsay
How do business relationships capture trade union leaders?
Businesses are employers of many of us whether organised or not. In the course of this employer/employee relationship, business owners are known to be some of the worst when it comes to bad labour relations and practises. It is here where trade unions are expected come head-to-head with such employers, a tussle which originates from the 17th century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. This tussle, and sadly so, is tucked in some corner in trade union leaders/business relationships. That said, industrial relations have evolved overtime where the adversarial nature of trade unions/employers has somewhat eased to a point where they adopt the attitude of let the sleeping dogs lie. As a result, trade unions here and elsewhere have increasingly got into some business relationship of one kind or the other with businesses. It is here where trade union leaders become susceptible or complicit to being captured by these business relationships just as it is in politics. I am specifically targeting union leaders because they are the first point of call to facilitate and promote whatever goods and services are on offer to their members from businesses.
SEE ALSO: NPF looting: The illicit deal gone horribly wrong
The Sowetan newspaper dated 31 May 2016 carried a story titled 'Union leaders captured by greed' in which it said that "COSATU leaders are looting workers' money and members do not trust them anymore. Too many of our unions are going through internal organisational turmoil leading to divisions and turmoil. At the centre of these organisational divisions is money; it is corruption and leadership style which when properly analysed it is not just undemocratic leadership style for its own sake but it is about a leader giving himself or herself a right and a space to loot resources. Legal firms, pension fund administrators, printing companies and medical aid companies were high on the list of those corrupting COSATU leaders and milking workers' money". This report, which the newspaper reports, was a "document presented by COSATU at its central executive committee meeting", and somehow provides a general glimpse of how trade unions have become a stepping stone for trade union leaders to use as 'cash cows'. Is it fair or reasonable to suggest that our local trade union leaders fall into the descriptions of Blade Nzimande and the Sowetan newspaper? Yes, because the ground is too fertile to grow state and union capture in South Africa like it is in Botswana.
When businesses have successfully infiltrated trade unions via trade union leaders, boardroom deals begin where these leaders are thanked in no small measure for having facilitated this infiltration through which profits accrue to the businesses. For these leaders and as a consequent, it becomes nothing for us without us – that is, they somewhat expect and obtain some hand shake for their efforts. It is important to note that at times, boardroom deals may not even take place whereupon individual deals are made for fear of letting the cat out of the bag where the rank and file could be of some hindrance. Private deals could be entered into because of trust deficit between the concerned trade union leaders themselves. The deals struck, like I have alluded to above, come in no small measure where these leaders begin to, for example, lead opulent lifestyles with massive property portfolios – the very thing they criticise politicians for. There is nothing wrong with trade union leaders, like it would be with any other person, leading opulent lifestyles if such is attained through honest means not complimented by any other which cannot be disclosed and/or verified.
SEE ALSO: Football should take its rightful place
Just like in politics where politicians refuse to subject themselves to accountability and transparent scrutiny where they become defensive and angry, the same is the case with trade union leaders. In some cases if not in all of them, these leaders and owing to the sheer power of their pockets and the larger than life status acquired from being captured, begin to flout with impunity the Constitutions of their trade unions by for example conveniently failing to call elective congresses when such are due; taking decisions on behalf of their unions which decisions require general membership approvals; and devoting more of trade union resources and time to pursue their own personal agendas with resultant financial and material gains and so on. In this respect, core trade union mandate becomes an inconsequential and distant pre-occupation. The continuing fracture of trade unions here and elsewhere is to a large extent occasioned by amongst others, failure by their leadership to stick to core trade union mandates. It is not in dispute that some of these are due to sheer personality clashes more than anything else. We have seen BFTU split resulting in the formation of BOFEPUSU, COSATU splitting into the formation of the recently launched South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU). In these splits, lack of financial accountability appears to be the main driving force. When glaring inequalities between the rank and file and business captured trade union leaders become evident, social cohesion (a means of enabling trade union leaders and the rank and file to co-exist in peace and harmony) fails, leading to instability and dissent.
Trade unions, which are captured and which by extension have un-comparable financial and human capital resources, should by now be spoilt for choice with regard to fully fledged paralegal practitioners to represent workers at the Industrial Court. It is unacceptable that owing to resources at their disposal to be self-sufficient in this area, expensive law firms are still engaged to argue fairly simple and straight forward cases of unfair dismissals bordering on procedural and substantive unfairness. It is not enough and strategic for a well-off trade union to call members to a lecture on dispute resolution for a day or two and claim that they are sufficiently trained to competently engage in fruitful dispute resolution at the workplace, let alone anywhere else. Trade union leaders who are captured by business relationships for their own personal gains are a source of instability and conflict in their trade unions. It is therefore disingenuous and hypocritical of them to apportion blame on politicians who derive personal gains from under hand dealings by using their positions and offices. I am not suggesting however that it is good for the politicians and not so for others. Trade union leaders should be the first to know the injustices perpetuated by gross inequalities in the mainstream economy because they would have been in the rank and file category before being elevated to leadership positions. For them to be using trade unions for personal aggrandisement through business relationships is simply unpardonable betrayal of the highest proportions. No wonder it is difficult for trade unions to massively and aggressively organise the unorganized, hence the painfully low membership bases across trade unions. It becomes difficult to convince and persuade workers to join trade unions because they view trade unions as 'cash cows' for the leaders whereupon it will take donkey years for them to be catapulted to leadership positions to have a bite as well.
SEE ALSO: A commission of enquiry serves public interest
Simon Sinek said "Great leaders are willing to sacrifice the numbers to save the people. Poor leaders sacrifice the people to save the numbers". Judge for Yourself!
You might also want to read..
Wilderness Holdings' withdrawal of expression of interest
The Zuptarisation of Mzansi!
COMMENTARY: Masisi should ignore Khama, fire Ramsay
NPF looting: The illicit deal gone horribly wrong
Football should take its rightful place
A commission of enquiry serves public interest
COMMENTARY: Masisi should ignore Khama, fire Ramsay NPF looting: The illicit deal gone horribly wrong Football should take its rightful place A commission of enquiry serves public interest Getting gender equality all wrong Include sexual minorities in HIV fight
MESSAGE FOR THE NEW SCHOOL YEAR TO LEARNERS AND TH...
The sky wouldn't have fallen had UDC petitions g...
Tafic suspend three players
Dry Thamalakane kills Maun vibe
Connect with us: Facebook Twitter Google Plus Youtube
Download our Ratecard.
Advertise with us; Email advertise@thepatriot.co.bw or call (+267) 318 7951
Story tip-offs: editors@thepatriot.co.bw
Unit 3, Plot 173, Commerce Park, Gaborone
© 2020 The Patriot on Sunday | Inspired by Search Mart

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl