Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study will investigate the efficiency of law, considering the relevant objective and subjective factors. The authors would like to emphasise that in no case this publication is intended to cast doubts on the universality of legal provisions, but rather, on the contrary, to emphasise it; as well as to emphasise what modern law must demonstrate nowadays, so that no such doubts arise in relation to this paper. The law itself is not effective – it is free people, who are subjects of law in their relations. A free person is an intelligent being who has the will, the gift of thinking, is capable of producing tools and can consciously use them. However, the mere biological in human does not define it as a person. Personality is described by a combination of biological content and social qualities. That is why the latter acts as a legal subject that embodies the legal existence, the principle of law, and acts as its carrier and implementer. An important issue in this context is the clear delineation of concepts such as progress, progressive change, and the usual (appropriate) standardisation, the proper performance of a certain phenomenon of its mandatory functions. In this study, the authors will try to answer the extent to which the law demonstrates its relevance in the life of the average person, civil society, the state to address certain contemporary issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".