MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

О «доктрине свободы усмотрения государств» в практике международных судебных органов

2021· article· ru· W3185229866 on OpenAlexaff
О. С. Орехов

Bibliographic record

VenueMoscow Journal of International Law · 2021
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineConventionPolitical scienceLawHuman rightsState (computer science)Consistency (knowledge bases)Law and economicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Современная система Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод объединяет 47 государств: от Азербайджана до Швейцарии, от Сан-Марино до России. Все эти страны имеют свои во многом различные исторические, культурные и правовые особенности.Согласно Доктрине, в случаях возникновения конфликта интересов общества и личности, государству надлежит самостоятельно определить, которому из этих интересов следует отдать предпочтение. Однако данная свобода усмотрения государства подлежит международному контролю со стороны Европейского суда по правам человека. Несмотря на то что Доктрина широко применяется Судом, она часто подвергается критике за подрыв единообразия в применении Конвенции. В настоящей статье приведен анализ аргументов сторонников и противников применения Доктрины. Приходя к выводу о целесообразности ее применения, автор статьи утверждает, что Доктрина обеспечивает определенную гибкость, необходимую Конвенции для того, чтобы объединить большое разнообразие государств-членов.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoscow Journal of International LawSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207