National Sovereignty: Socio-Political Transformation in Context of Modern Cyber Realities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key idea of the study is the question of the relationship between such categories as “national sovereignty” and “cyberspace”. The authors consider that the current theory of law and positive legal regulation at the present stage do not offer reasonable options for interaction and coexistence of these concepts. In the conditions of the dramatic changes in the existing realities over the past 30 years, the question arises of the differentiation of legal regulation, which is still more intended to the social relations that existed in the 20th century. Today technical progress is significantly ahead of social, in particular, legal regulation, which, in turn, is seriously tied to the state or, as any law student confirms, “territorial organization of power in a society with sovereignty...”. And here the main question arises about the reasonableness of the above formulation. Is it suitable for existing realities? Or is it itself an obstacle to legalization? The article analyzes various approaches to the legal settlement of relations in cyberspace, as well as offers two options for supranational regulation of these legal relations - through the development and establishment of an extraterritorial international body that will have not only the ability to control public relations within cyberspace, but also special instruments of coercion to influence the citizens of any state, either through the creation of a global system of international acts that will regulate most of the existing questions about the interaction of persons in cyberspace and included a clear mechanism to respond quickly to the emergence of new relations in this sphere. The authors also consider that the inability at theoretical level to conceptualize the relationship between these categories could lead to the discrediting of such notions as “national state” and “national sovereignty” in the future.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".