Public Interest in Private Law Relations of Transition Democracies: A Modern View from the Standpoint of a Systemic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigates the legal nature of the category of "public interest" in private law relations from the standpoint of a systematic scientific approach to law in the countries of post-Soviet society in the modern period. The study states the affiliation of public and private law to the means of achieving the purpose of the law: the recognition of a person, their rights and freedoms as the highest social value of the state. The unsuitability of the theory of the branch belonging to public law has been proved using the universal criterion of separation: the use of the category of "public interest" in the development of the subject and method of the branch in private legal relations. It is concluded that the division of law into private and public is inconsistent in terms of their differentiation of the criterion "method of protecting the rights of their participants", which is activated only after the violation of the latter, while subjective law also exists before the violation, during the existence of regulatory legal relations, and it is the subjective law that forms the affiliation to the relevant industry. During the study, signs of public interest as a legal category were formed. In addition, modern features of public interest as a legal category were outlined from the standpoint of a systematic approach: the general nature of public interests; connectedness with large-scale involvement; recognition by the state and the provision of the law; the possibility of their implementation through measures of state power.
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".