Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: this paper deals with defects in the regulatory part of the legal regulation mechanism as deficiencies in regulatory and legal matter. Commitment to high quality of legal norms and regulatory acts is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of law and the main requir ement to lawmaking. Creating legal uncertainty and being a fertile field for the emergence of many negative legal phenomena, regulatory defects should become an independent subject matter of a new scientific area of legal defectology. Purpose: to formulate the concept 'regulatory legal defect' taking into account the complexity of defectiveness as a legal phenomenon and its relationship with many other legal categories; to justify the importance of its independent research within the theory of law. Methods: the research is based on the general scientific dialectic approach to cognition of legal defects, which allows for considering this phenomenon in its formation and development as well as in conjunction with related phenomena; other methods applied in course of research include methods of formal logic and specific scientific methods of studying legal reality (formal dogmatic, hermeneutical approach, legal modeling). Results: understanding of regulatory legal defects is in dialectical unity with the concepts 'quality of law' and 'effectiveness of law'. A regulatory legal flaw can be recognized as a defect when it violates the quality standard of law and adversely affects the performance of a legal regulator. Conclusions: the effectiveness of law is influenced by both non-legal factors (political, managerial, financial, social, psychological, ideological) and some legal deficiencies related to defects (restrictions, obstacles, administrative barriers, legislative imbalance, neutralization of law). Regulatory legal defects, mutually determined and interacting with other legal flaws, have their own content and their own conceptual line, reflecting certain shortcomings of the content, form and structure of legal rules and regulatory legal acts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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 it