Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper considers the development of the third-party institute in civil proceedings and its value for implementation of the right of access to court. It includes comparative analysis of the third parties stipulated in the civil procedures of civil law countries - European Union, Germany, Italy, France and common law countries – UK, USA, Canada and Australia. The article also compares the third persons envisaged in the project “The International Rules of Civil of the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) and in the Civil Code of Georgia. The paper considers the issue about define the type and quality of influence to be exerted by judgment on persons’ rights to involve them in trial in the Civil Procedures Code of Georgia. The paper suggests introduction of the term ,,intervention” in the Civil Procedure Law of Georgia and differentiation of the kinds of intervention in accordance with the continental (civil) law reflecting the interference of a third party in the civil proceedings. For avoiding intervention of the persons, whose rights and obligations are not impacted by the judgement, the paper, at stipulation of international practice, recommends introduction of the “amicus curiae” procedural mechanism in Civil Procedure Law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".