MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

JUDICIAL PROTECTION AS ONE OF THE GUARANTEES OF THE COURTS IN UKRAINE

2021· article· en· W3205242985 on OpenAlex
Mariana Khmyz, Ruslan Skrynkovskyy, Svitlana Hlushchenko, Svyatoslav Tsyuh, Valentyn Serdiuk, Myroslav Kovaliv, P. H. Harasym, Mykola Mykytiuk

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic scientific publication Public Administration and National Security · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeJudicial reviewJudicial independenceState (computer science)ConstitutionEnforcementService (business)Judicial activismGuard (computer science)BusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article reveals the features of judicial protection as one of the key guarantees of the activities of courts in Ukraine. It has been established that the peculiarities of judicial protection as one of the key guarantees of the activities of courts in Ukraine are regulated by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine «On state protection of employees of the court and law enforcement agencies», the Law of Ukraine «On the National Police», the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges», by the decision of the High Council of Justice «On approval of the Regulations on the Judicial Protection Service», by the Decision of the Council of Judges of Ukraine «On measures to ensure the safety of courts and judges, the protection of courts and persons involved in the implementation of legal proceedings». It was determined that, in addition to the Judicial Protection Service, security functions are performed by units of the National Police of Ukraine and units of the National Guard of Ukraine. It was found that the Judicial Protection Service is a state body that functions in the justice system and whose main task is to ensure the protection and maintenance of proper order in the courts. It has been established that the Judicial Protection Service is subordinate to the High Council of Justice, and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine controls the activities of the Judicial Protection Service. It was determined that the procedure for the passage of service by employees of the Judicial Protection Service is established in accordance with the procedure approved by the High Council of Justice, moreover, on the proposal of the Head of the Judicial Protection Service and in agreement with the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine. It was found that the safety of judges, as well as the protection of court buildings, is one of the main guarantees of the independence of judges and the justice system as a whole. It has been established that in order to increase the effectiveness of judicial protection, initiated cooperation has been established with the Ukrainian-Canadian Judicial Reform Support Project, as well as have been developed and implemented the Ukrainian-Canadian Judicial Reform Support Project and the European Union «Law-Justice» Project . It is noted that the structure of the Judicial Protection Service consists of the central governing body and territorial offices of the Service. It is proposed in the perspective of further research to reveal the legal features of the procedure for admission to the position of candidates for service in the Judicial Protection Service.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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