The problem of legal regulation of the management of national wealth in the federal state Comparative analytical study between the Iraqi and Canadian political systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal organization of the national wealth in the world varies according to the political system, its function and its composition into a simple and complex state. A simple state with one authority and unity (one constitution, one government), and then individuals are subject to one authority and laws. Therefore, the legal organization of national wealth is central. The center controls all other activities and activities of the state. The existence of two levels of governance (the center / regions) and the accompanying administrative and financial division within one state, under a written constitution that regulates the relationshipbetween federal and regional governments.Thus, federal regimes differ in the regulation of wealth legislation. Some of them regulate their legislation by giving wide powers to the wealth in their territory. On the contrary, most federal states formed by the unification of a number of independent territories have retained the territory by owning wealth, From the guarantee of that state, the federal states in the world in relation to the regulation of wealth related to the two-way, the first trend: see that the ownership of wealth belongs to the land and then be owned by the owner of the territory (territory), the second trend: Considered as state-owned (center).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".