MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087764830 · doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.779255

Citizenship, social rights and judicial review in regime transition: the case of Russia

2013· article· en· W2087764830 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDemocratization · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSupreme courtSocial rightsAppealPolitical sciencePoliticsAuthoritarianismState (computer science)PetitionerCitizenshipSociologyDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During a regime transition, are citizens more likely to appeal to the courts to protect their rights, or less likely? The study examines 107 decisions of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court on social welfare, passed between 1991 and 2010. As the political system became more authoritarian under President Vladimir Putin, citizen petitions to the Supreme and Constitutional Courts greatly increased, reflecting discontent with the content and implementation of social welfare reforms. Furthermore, citizen petitioners won a surprisingly large number of their cases. The analysis reveals the Constitutional Court to be a strong defender of social rights overall, while establishing an implicit hierarchy of groups entitled to special protection. Its rulings posited that the state has an obligation not just to uphold its current social contract, but to honour the previous social contract for people who spent their productive lives under a different political regime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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