MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106436797 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.69

Ensuring Enforcement of Judgements through the Prism of Reforming Criminal Provisions

2020· article· en· W3106436797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aliesia Mytnyk, D.I. Syrota, Tetiana M. Slobodianyk, V.V. Loktionova, Oleksandr V. Pleskun

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementLegislationLegislatureLaw enforcementBusinessLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceUkrainianEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of ensuring the enforcement of judgements is pressing both at the national and global levels. In some countries, judgments are often enforced only in part or with long delays, and sometimes not enforced at all. One of the consequences of non-enforcement of judgements is the application of penalties for the failure to fulfil international obligations. This study intends to identify the main aspects of non-enforcement of judgments in Ukraine and the world and to outline the prospects for criminal law provisions regulating enforcement of national and international judgements on the example of reforming Ukrainian legislation. The object of research is criminal law provisions regulating the enforcement of judgements. The research methodology is due to the specifics of the object, which requires a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach involving a set of general and special methods of scientific cognition. The results of the study are related to the confirmation and refutation of hypotheses on sufficiency of international mechanisms to effectively ensure enforcement of judgements; the need to take certain actions at the national level to ensure the enforcement of judgements; the need for the legislative authorities to take certain actions at the national level; the need for the executive authorities to take certain actions at the national level; reasonability of criminalization of non-enforcement of judgments. The article contains a novelty that has theoretical and practical significance. In particular, the theoretical significance of the obtained results is that it is an original comprehensive study of enforcement of judgements of national and international judicial institutions through the prism of reforming criminal law, and offers a new concept of criminal law enforcement of judgements. The practical significance of the obtained results is that the presented data can serve as a guide for future work in this area, as well as legislative initiatives on criminal law enforcement of judgements in Ukraine and the world

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicLegal Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207