Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Poland the term lobby has a number of meanings, which is undoubtedly the result of an \nabsence o f a comprehensive and full legal regulation of this particular institution. The first part of the \npaper is therefore devoted to definitions of ‘lobby’ formulated in non-legal literature. Then, legal \ndefinitions of lobbying that operate in selected states (USA, Australia, Canada, Georgia and \nLithuania) are presented. The last part of the paper contains presentation of common features of the \nanalysed definitions. The terms „interest groups” as well as „lobby groups” with reference to the \nPrivate Members’ Bills concerning the phenomenon o f lobbying are also discussed. In its essence, the \npaper is a somewhat critical characteristics o f the Polish definition o f ‘lobbying’ shown on the basis of \nseveral problems that arose in the process o f the work o f the parliamentary Extraordinary Committee. \nIn conclusion, several obervations de lege ferenda concerning the existing legal regulation are \npresented.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it