MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Courts on the Web in Russia

2008· book-chapter· en· W4235480865 on OpenAlexaff
Alexei Trochev

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Government · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSkepticismEconomic JusticePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic GovernmentSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207