Effectiveness, Risks and Prospects of Legal Regulation and Practical Functioning of Electronic Visas in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Electronic visa legislative regulation is one of the highest priorities in the country's migration, security and visa policies. The purpose of this study is to compare the legal aspects of visa policy making in the process of issuing electronic visas in Ukraine and in Saudi Arabia, and to identify the distinctive and common features of this type of visa, legislative features, practical aspects, taking into account the specific national legislation of these countries; elicit the disadvantages and perspectives of e-visa. Over a period of 3 months, about 100 Saudi and 20 Ukrainian respondents were interviewed to identify the pros and cons of existing e-visa regulations in both countries. As a results of the research, the hypothesis put forward regarding the fact that in the next 5-10 years, e-visas will almost completely replace the visa application for obtaining short-term visas through diplomatic institutions. It was established that this required the creation of a more simplified and faster way to obtain an e-visa, while not losing ground in matters of state security and migration. As a result of comparison it has been established that service of electronic visas in Ukraine was launched one and a half years earlier than in Saudi Arabia, which enabled her to secure more completely the situation and take into account the nuances of the legislative level; the amount of the visa fee for applying for an electronic visa established by Ukraine and Saudi Arabia is acceptable for most applicants, although in comparison with a visa-free or one-time electronic authorization fee for several years, these amounts are large.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".