MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235972891 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v12n5p147

Digitization of Law: Some Problematic Aspects

2019· article· en· W4235972891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsDigitizationPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawSociologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reveals the important practical importance of academic cooperation between legal doctrine and achievements of technical laboratories in terms of defining “points of growth” in questions of digitalization of law and development of legal tools aimed at regulating the technogenic factor on the one hand and legal support of “game-changing” results in a in the conditions of digital economy on the other hand. The important role of the transformation of social regulators, designed to regulate the “infrastructural” and “institutional” incorporation of “digital” technologies into the existing legal system, is noted. The current place of the Russian Federation on readiness for the digital economy is subject to, among other things, insufficient theoretical study as a result of the regulatory framework, which often does not act as a platform for growth, but rather contains many gaps - which have to be overcome at the expense of law enforcement practice. The article notes that the trend of “digitalization” of Russian law is closely linked to the need to maintain the ecosystem of the digital economy and to identify “growth points” and enforce their urgent character based on the state’s resource base, defines a positive agenda for “digitalization” of Russian law and raises a number of questions for the Russian science. It is concluded that one of the topical issues in the framework of the “digitalization” of Russian law is legal robotics, which is perceived as the automation of workflows, the existence of interrelated algorithms of actions aimed at generating a predictable result based on some initial simulated and prescribed situation and maximum robotization of legal processes. Using the example of the Kazan Federal University, which proclaimed the promotion of innovative development of the focus areas of the Russian Federation as one of its missions, the achievements obtained as a result of the interaction of legal doctrine and technical laboratories are revealed.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.045
Scholarly communication0.0150.026
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicDigital Transformation in LawFrench-language works237,207