Political Responsibility of the Deputy of the Regional Parliament in the Russian Federation
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
This work studies the distinctive features of political responsibility of regional deputies representing the interests of various electoral groups. The status of a regional parliament deputy in Russian regions is characterized in two ways. It is regulated not only by laws and ethical norms, but also by political guidelines. Regional deputies are held legally accountable for violating laws, and by straying from party or state guidelines, they risk being held politically accountable. This is why the object of study of this article is the negative consequences that regional deputies suffer as a result of the political practices in Russian regions. In 2016-2019, there was an expansion of legal grounds that affect termination of deputy duties. Deputies are frequently limited in their rights to address other participants of regional politics. In some cases, artificial barriers are created to interfere with the work of regional deputies. These limitations are political in nature, and thus have a vague definition in law. Because of that, the author pays special attention to the political norms that, if violated, result in special negative consequences for regional deputies, including their inability to perform their parliamentary duties.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it