MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562583985 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v10n1p234

Ways to Defend Citizenship Rights in Civil Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Republic of Tajikistan

2016· article· en· W2562583985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdolhossin Hasani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFundamental rightsLawConstitutionCitizenshipReservation of rightsPolitical scienceSafeguardingHuman rightsRight to propertyInternational human rights lawPrivate rightsSocial rightsRule of lawGovernment (linguistics)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given enforceable rules and regulations that govern the relations of individuals in society, two kinds of rights can be derived: private and public. When we speak about the citizen and his/her rights, we mean a set of private and public law that governs social relationships. In fact, expression of citizenship rights means that every person enjoys as being a citizen of a country. The importance of the citizenship rights is to the extent that is closely related to place the rule of finds and even some experts believe that a society in which the rights of citizens and the relationship between people and government falters cannot be established. Guarantee of the fundamental rights of citizens, primarily implies by inserting these rights in the constitution of every country act. In other words, it takes an effective step in the process of constitution rule of law, freedom and enjoyment of facilities and take citizenship. But we must consider the fact that the protection and safeguarding of the rights of individual citizens is on the shoulders of all powers and government agencies that have the necessary measures to protect the rights of citizens. Besides, their executive units operate in all administrative formalities the rights of citizens and legal and in the case of not conforming citizens' rights are not overwhelm the device government should have a competent judicial authorities that the rights of individuals against the government defend the principles of a fair trial. So the fundamental rights of citizens included in the constitution and other laws, required to comply with these rights by the state, there is a competent judicial body that complaints about violation of their people by governmental agencies and monitor governmental bodies are responsible in this regard. All of them are standards implementation and guarantee of the rights of citizenship in a democratic society. Comparative analysis of compliance standards in the legal system of Iran and Tajikistan is a major point of discussion at the end, to recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both countries and richer the implementation and monitoring of the implementation of the rights to use the experiences of the countries.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207