Theoretical and Practical Problems of Protecting an Employee's Rights Due to Industrial Accident
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, the authors state that the basis of any social state is the principle of ensuring social stability and security as well as social rights. The legal nature of such a legal category as “industrial accident” is investigated. It is concluded that the specified category is characterized by the lack of conscious will of the person, in other words, specific actions aimed at deliberately harming the worker himself. The national legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of the employee rights protection in case of industrial accident is investigated. The methods and peculiarities of employees' rights protection on the account of industrial accidents are analyzed. Ukrainian legislation is noted to provide presently a wide range of possibilities, ways of protecting the rights of the insured person against industrial accidents, among which, in particular, the authors distinguish the most effective ones: recognition of a transaction invalid, compulsory performance of duty, compensation for damages, other ways of compensation and moral harm. The comparative analysis of legal categories “insurance payment” and “insurance indemnity” is carried out. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by an industrial accident is a rather problematic issue, which may be related to the unequal application of substantive law by courts of various instances, as well as the existence of certain loopholes in the law. It is established that, from both practical and theoretical point of view, justification of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is contradictory, since the courts, although mainly based on the interests of the employee, but often reduce the amount of compensation, which in their opinion is clearly overestimated, it is necessary to approach this issue carefully in order to achieve fair satisfaction. The jurisprudence of Ukraine and some foreign countries in this field, in particular Great Britain, America, Canada, is investigated. The authors conclude that the Anglo-Saxon legal family is more advanced in the area of non-pecuniary damage than the countries of the Romano-German legal system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".