Зарубіжна практика у протидії корупції: кримінологічна характеристика
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking into account the results of recent researches of anticorruption practice in the world, the problem of counteraction to corruption remains to be relevant today. Therefore, analysis of the positive experience of those countries that have already achieved some success in the anticorruption practice, will optimize the modern system of anticorruption measures in other states. The purpose of this paper is criminological research of international experience in this sphere in certain countries: USA, England, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore. The institute of prevention of the "conflict of interests" in the public service requires the special attention. There are special bodies in some countries, which control the situation to eliminate such conflict. The Nolan’s Committee regulates such “conflict of interests” in Great Britain. In the Netherlands there are internal security services in all organizations. They detect the blunders of officials. In Germany the official has to obtain the prior permission from the highest official authority for extra work. Besides the new job after the termination of official duties will be prohibited if it harms the interests of the service. Also in a modern anti-corruption activity it is worth taking into consideration the principle of rigid administrative legal control for the partnership of businesses in a political life of society. Such control concerns the period of election campaigns, as an effective method for example in Canada. The principle of non-partisan of the official activity was incorporated in the legislation of the most foreign countries. In the Model Code of Conduct for Public Officials determines that a public official should act in a politically neutral manner and should not attempt to interfere in the legal policy, decisions or actions of public authorities. So the foreign experience could be a basis in the formation of national Code of Official Conduct. At once it is necessary to introduce the state program of forming an anti-corruption culture of citizens for the ensuring the process of education the proper level of social culture of nationals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".