A Systematic Approach to the Understanding of National Security in the Legal Dimension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, security issues are critically burning for the world community, the State and society as well as for an individual. Practical activities of states and other structures which ensure national security in general and its certain types in particular must be based on a comprehensive scientific study of such category as “national security" primarily from the philosopho-legal point of view. This is particularly reflected in the development of the science of security (SoS). This article presents a comprehensive fundamental philosopho-legal study of the national security system. The category "national security" is multidimensional and includes such types as state security, public security, personal security, information security, environmental security, transport security and others. In the article there is an attempt to reconsider the category of "national security" from the point of view of a systematic approach to the analysis of the basis of differentiation of certain types in its system. The study is aimed at understanding the essence, nature and characteristics of national security. The results of this study can be used in public administration and legal confirmation of political decisions. The author comes to the conclusion that it is possible to distinguish national security into types in terms of 1 – a security object (interest to be protected) which therefore is divided into "social" (primary) and "non-social" (secondary) and in terms of 2 – a source of a threat.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".