MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996175913 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n6p267

Protection of Personal Non-Property Rights: International, National and Foreign Experience

2015· article· en· W1996175913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marine Z. Abesalashvili, Lidiya Nikolaevna Burkova, Tutarishcheva Svetlana Muratovna, Irina Askerovna Gasheva

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementUnificationLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLegislationHuman rightsCompensation (psychology)Property (philosophy)Property rightsSociologyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the regulatory framework aimed at ensuring personal non-property rights of citizens, as well as problems of improving the legal regulation. We examined provisions adopted in the international law, the Russian civil law, foreign law, approaches developed in law enforcement and opinions, formulated in modern scientific literature. The author showed the trends towards convergence of norms, which regulate personal non-property rights in legislation of different countries. In these standards the author points out strict adherence to fundamental principles, enshrined in international human rights instruments, which determines a possibility of unification of legal regulation of the examined area of public relations. Examples of international experience, examined by the author, also offer effective approaches to compensation for moral damages in cases of violation of non-property rights. The author’s conclusions expressed in this article can be used in law enforcement and scientific activities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207