Continuity in the Development of Judicial Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing changes in the legal map of the world reflect the interaction of legal systems. These processes inevitably affect the scope of activities of the judicial authorities associated with such a phenomenon as judicial law. The authors of the article take a narrow approach to understanding it. It implies the manifestation of judicial law as judicial practice and judicial precedents. The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that the phenomenon of judicial law goes beyond the limits of a single legal family, which implies its comparative legal research. At the same time, an important direction of such activity is the study of the development of this law associated with the processes of continuity. The objective of the study is to identify the concept and features of continuity in the development of judicial law. To do this, the authors formulated the following tasks: identify the concept and signs of continuity within the framework of legal development; disclose the peculiarities of understanding judicial law; determine the characteristic features of continuity in the development of judicial precedents; characterize continuity in the evolution of judicial practice. The conducted research is based on a dialectically understood model of continuity. This assumes the use of a systemic paradigm associated with a constellation of different methods, such as comparative, structural-functional, etc. The results allowed the authors to determine the trends and prospects for the development of judicial law within the framework of certain legal spaces. The authors of the article believe it advisable to use these results in subsequent research on this topic.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".