Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the new status of judges in the system of separation of powers and the important role they play in the implementation of political power. The author finds the reasons for these changes in raising the level of legitimacy of judges while maintaining their constitutional and legal status. In the author’s opinion, legitimacy and social acceptability of actions of a political actor is based simultaneously on the person’s ideas about their duty to obey and their voluntary participation in solving common problems. As conditions of the power legitimacy, the author notes its ability to create legal norms, to proclaim moral values and to stabilize the political system. Having examined specific judicial decisions of the courts of France, Belgium and Canada, as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union over the past twenty years, the author comes to the conclusion about the availability of all three conditions of legitimacy of modern judges as political representatives of the people. They are closer to private persons than other political actors because they do not operate with abstract categories, but rather respond to specific complaints of citizens. At the same time, the author warns that there is a risk of preference of individual interests to the general interest in the judicial procedure which can lead to the rupture of social relations in a democratic society. Finally, he concludes that the careful attitude to the role of the judge as a political representative is very important.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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".