Practice of Board of Appeals of FAS of Russia (scientific review ofthe most significant cases considered in the third quarter of 2020)
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
This review of the decisions of the “departmental appeal”, which has already become a tradition, contains comments on three cases considered by the Board of Appeals of the FAS of Russia in the third quarter of 2020. The first of the considered cases is devoted to the issues of enforceability of warnings, including qualifications of actions under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 10 of the Law “On protection of competition”. Other two cases are related to the issues of proving anticompetitive agreements. However, in one case, the Board of Appeals of the FAS of Russia evaluated indirect evidence of cartel agreements, established territorial control, and in another case — the relevance of qualification of actions of legal entities under paragraph 4 of article 16 of the Law “On protection of competition”.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it