Tools of persuasion: the efforts of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights to reform the Russian pre-trial detention system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the tools available to the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for promoting Russian compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights regarding pre-trial detention conditions. As cases regarding the poor treatment of prisoners in Russian pre-trial detention centers continue to burden the ECHR, the Court has begun implementing alternative methods of curbing what it views as a systemic problem within the Russian prison system. Mechanisms considered include the awarding of financial damages, which has thus far been difficult to enforce, as well as the newly adopted mechanism of the pilot judgment procedure. The pilot judgment procedure presents a strong tool for the ECHR in gaining compliance from the Russian government and affecting reform within the pre-trial detention system, as long as the ECHR treats Russia as an equal partner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.137 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".