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
When the Internet reached Russia in the mid-1990s, Russian judicial chiefs actively embraced the idea of having a solid presence of national judiciary on the Web. To judges, having court Web sites would improve public awareness about Russian courts and relieve overloaded court clerks from answering mundane questions about the location of courthouses, hours of work, schedule of hearings, court forms, and so on. However, the chronic underfinancing of Russian courts in the 1990s and the decentralized nature of the Russian judiciary made the creation and the maintenance of the lower courts’ Web sites much more sporadic. Improving public awareness about Russian courts is a priority for Russian judges, who increasingly issue impartial decisions yet at the same time face growing public skepticism about judicial performance (Solomon, 2003, 2004; Trochev, 2006). As the growing number of studies of the information and communication technologies (ICT) in courthouses around the world show, computerized courts can both speed up the administration of justice and strengthen public trust in the judicial system (Bueno, Ribeiro, & Hoeschl, 2003; Dalal, 2005; Fabri & Contini, 2001; Fabri & Langbroek, 2000; Fabri, Jean, Langbroek, & Pauliat, 2005; Langbroek & Fabri, 2004; Oskamp, Lodder, & Apistola, 2004; Valentini, 2003; Malik, 2002). Indeed, as the recent research demonstrates, those who know something about the courts: either about court procedures or about court-ordered public policies, tend to trust the judiciary and to comply with court decisions (Baird, 2001; Gibson, Caldeira., & Baird, 1998; Kritzer & Voelker, 1998; Tyler & Mitchell, 1994; Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). This article focuses on the Web sites of Russian courts as the virtual gateways in the world of judicial administration (Trochev, 2002) and discusses challenges of adapting Russian court Web sites to the needs of various users of judicial system: judges themselves, law-enforcement agencies, actual litigants, general public and scholars (Toharia, 2003).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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