Recommendations of the Council of Europe as a Guide for the Development of Criminal Executive Law of Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recommendations of the Council of Europe are based on the rich European experience of execution of punishments in the field of criminal-executive law, as well as the generalisation of the positive achievements of the national legislation of the most developed countries in this respect. In its recommendations, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe calls on States to improve the legislation and practices of their respective agencies with a view to increasing the application of alternative sanctions and measures, which should ultimately reduce the number of people held in prisons. The aim of the article is to determine the degree of consideration of the recommendations of the Council of Europe on changes in certain norms of legislation in the field of criminal executive law. The main approach is the methodology of comparative analysis of the domestic penitentiary system and its legal framework in the world and the European Union, as well as the previous system in Ukraine, which has changed in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Based on the results of the analysis, the priority areas for implementation of the recommendations provided by the Council of Europe concerning the observance of rights in the penitentiary system have been identified. In the future, it is of interest to compare the legislative support of the penitentiary system in the light of the further implementation of the recommendations of the Council of Europe in the context of the implementation of relevant norms in the domestic legislation and their realisation in practice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".