La Consulta como una forma de apoyo científico y experto para la actividad legislativa del parlamento (ejemplo de la Duma Estatal de la Asamblea Federal de la Federación de Rusia).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El artículo analiza la Consulta como forma de apoyo científico y experto de la actividad legislativa del parlamento, consistente en proporcionar al cuerpo legislativo, varios tipos de propuestas, comentarios, aclaraciones, recomendaciones, opiniones de expertos, antecedentes y otra información sobre temas relacionados con la legislación tanto por escrito como oralmente, que incluye recomendaciones relacionadas con la preparación de proyectos de ley o su finalización en el proceso de actividad legislativa, diversas evaluaciones de las disposiciones de la legislación vigente, disposición de información legislativa, analítica, jurídica, estadística y de otro tipo de interés al legislador a petición suya, o por iniciativa propia, preparación de recomendaciones metodológicas para su uso en el trabajo legislativo, diversos eventos de capacitación para diputados, sus asistentes y empleados del aparato parlamentario, etc.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".