MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PAID SEIZURE OF PROPERTY IN WARTIME

2022· article· en· W4321267965 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

VenueScientific Notes Series Law · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRequisitionConfiscationUkrainianLegislationLawCivil codePolitical scienceProperty (philosophy)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the procedure for seizing property from citizens during wartime. The practice of confiscating cars from persons against whom materials on an administrative offense provided for in Art. 130 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. A number of shortcomings of the legal regulation of the requisition procedure in the legislation of Ukraine are outlined. Foreign experience on this issue is partially analyzed. On February 24, 2022, in connection with the invasion of the territory of Ukraine and the increase of armed aggression by the Russian Federation on the territory of our state, martial law was imposed in Ukraine for 30 days, which was increased later on. This legal basis has made significant changes to the usual life of Ukrainians, because now in Ukraine there are slightly different rules and other rights and responsibilities, including the right to own, use and dispose of their property. In this scientific paper, we analyzed the procedure of paid confiscation of property from citizens in wartime. The practical side of cars confiscation from people, of whom materials on administrative offenses provided by Art. 130 of Ukrainian Code of administrative offenses are compiled. Because of a difficult situation in Ukraine, a list of new legal acts have been written, which automatically created some questionable points. Therefore, a number of shortcomings of the legal regulation of the requisition procedure in the legislation of Ukraine are outlined. Foreign experience on this issue is partially analyzed as well. Because of a big disbalance within this topic in Ukraine, foreign experience would be useful when making needed changes in legal acts related to paid confiscation of property. Some of the countries had positive experience with requisition, i.e. Canada and Finland. For example, Finland has some good points when it comes to appealing. Almost all decisions made on alienation can be appealed. The appeal period is 30 days, although it may be extended in certain circumstances. The appeal is considered by a special court known as the land court. You can apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision of the Land Court Considering this as well as Canadian experience, some of the key moments that Ukraine should undertake are: 1) time limits that regard time limit to appeal a decision of requisition, time limit for seizing the property; 2) the possibility of financial reimbursement; 3) determination of the exclusive range of entities authorized to conduct the procedure of alienation of property.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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