A International standards and rules for interaction between public authori-ties during the Covid-19 pandemic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims at identifying the core rules and standards for forming a legal model of inter-action between levels of public authority in a federal state during a pandemic. The authors have considered documents that regulate the process of interaction between public authorities during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the doctrinal sources of law in Belgium, Germany, Canada, the USA, Switzerland, and Australia. In addition, they have analyzed the acts of the World Health Organization adopted during the COVID-19 epidemic and containing recom-mendations on the interaction of public authorities during a pandemic. The research methods were as follows: general philosophical, general and special scientific (structural-legal, compara-tive-legal, and formal-legal The authors have concluded that it is possible to introduce separate rules and standards for such interaction of public authorities during the period of a pandemic into the Russian legal system.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 it