MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970220217 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v12n5p42

The Doctrine’s Role in the Field of Legal Regulation of Public Relations: Problems and Prospects

2019· article· en· W2970220217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adel Abdullin, Ainur Gilmullin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSecurity, Politics, and Digital Transformation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKazan Federal University
KeywordsDoctrineLegal doctrineLawmakingLawPolitical scienceInternational lawPublic lawEnforcementLaw and economicsSociologyLegislature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper contains a comprehensive analysis of the legal doctrine’s role in the field of legal regulation of public relations arising in modern public law practice. The theoretical and legal features of the legal doctrine are revealed. In particular, conclusions are drawn confirming the arguments that the legal doctrine allows building clear guidelines for the practice of lawmaking, enforcement of the right, and especially law enforcement and that the doctrine acts as a scientifically based criterion for the legitimacy, rationality, and effectiveness of states. Special attention is paid to the historical aspects of the legal doctrine development which have significance and influence on the formation and development of international and domestic law. Particular attention of the authors of the paper is drawn to the place and role of legal doctrine in international legal practice. The paper notes that the legal doctrine manifestation in the activities of modern states can be observed in such functions as prognostic, evaluation, regulatory, methodological, world outlook and ideological function. In addition, it is noted that the doctrine plays an important role in the activities of the UN International Court of Justice, where the doctrines of the most qualified specialists are often used in making decisions and drawing up advisory opinions; in the development of international treaties at international conferences and in international organizations, etc. Specific examples of the legal doctrine manifestations in the activities of the ECHR are given.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.048
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicSecurity, Politics, and Digital TransformationFrench-language works237,207