Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the Korean Public official Election Act, no one allowed to publish any public opinion poll result within 6 days before the election day (atricl 108, section 1). By making similar clause of ex-Election Act consitutional, the Constitutional Court of Korea is protecting law-makers from critics on the constitutional controversy. This study argues that current restriction of providing opinion poll information would significantly infringe freedom of expression, and the ruling of the Constitutional Court should be reconsidered. For demonstrating these arguments, this study explores three aspects. First, by revisiting official records of the National Assembly of Korea on the establishment of this clause of limitation of publishing poll information, this study reveals the National Assembly handled this clause with the view of law makers political interest in mind and with less consideration for protecting individual freedom of expression. It is very difficult to find valid and legitimate grounds why 6days- blackout period is required. Secondly, this study tries to establish that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea, by not applying to a much stricter constitutional-test, has actually many legal problems. Lastly, this study also introduces other countries` case whereby the Constitutional Courts of Canada, Hungary and Slovenia have recently ruled that election opinion poll restriction is unconstitutional. These other countries` cases give us more appropriate legal grounds and logics to rapidly revise the excessive restriction of Korean election law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".