MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292601048 · doi:10.31548/law2022.01.008

LEGAL BASES OF LAND USE IN UKRAINE AND CANADA: COMPARATIVE LEGAL ASPECT

2022· article· en· W4292601048 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Human Environment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLand Use and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianLegislationDoctrineWork (physics)Land usePolitical scienceAgricultureBusinessEnvironmental planningLawGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of land use plays an important role in shaping Ukraine’s economy. Therefore, the study of the market for agricultural land is a high priority and relevant to legal doctrine, as this issue directly affects the national security of the state, because it involves control over the risks that may arise conditioned upon the high concentration of areas agricultural land owned by one person, uncontrolled acquisition of land by foreigners, and partial monopolisation of certain segments of the agricultural market. The purpose of this work is to carry out a comparative legal analysis of the legislation of Ukraine and Canada in the field of land use, highlighting their common and distinctive features. To achieve this goal, the article used several methodological approaches and methods for research, including functional and theoretical approaches, the method of logical analysis, synthesis method, formal-legal method, method of comparative analysis, method of analysis of scientific literature. After the research, the theoretical and practical principles of this issue were obtained. The first includes the analysis of regulatory frameworks of Ukraine and Canada, and the second analysis of direct methods and approaches used in these countries during land use. Based on the results obtained, differences were formed between the legal basis for the implementation of the above process and revealed positive aspects that would be appropriate to implement in future rule-making activities in this area of Ukrainian legislation. In the further works it is necessary to determine the prospects of the methods on which the current land policy of both countries is based and to identify ways to increase its effectiveness. As for the practical value of the work, it certainly lies in the fact that it identifies the main theoretical aspects related to the implementation of land reform in Ukraine, and thus facilitate the interpretation of certain rules for both ordinary citizens and civil servants

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.222 · 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