MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF FREE WILL AS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT

2022· article· en· W4360766601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Віктор Савченко

Bibliographic record

VenueACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsolute (philosophy)LawAbsolute time and spacePolitical scienceLaw and economicsFundamental rightsHuman rightsRight to propertySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides a legal justification for the absoluteness of free will. The understanding of free will has changed from imagining it as "fatum" in determinism to defining its limitations through international and national legal norms. Suppose the ancient philosophers wrote that God influences a person's will today. In that case, it is considered relevant to understand the limits of free will through the prism of regulatory and legal regulation. This thesis raises the pressing question of whether free will is absolute. The purpose of this article is the legal justification that free will is absolute. To substantiate this thesis, the author proposes to investigate two statements: 1. freedom of will is absolute, and legal norms specify it; 2. freedom of will is not absolute because regulations define its limits. The author examines absolute rights through the prism of their control in international treaties. In particular, an analysis of the normative consolidation and limitation of absolute rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was carried out. The author analyses the legal grounds for limiting absolute rights. The scientist concludes that the definition of a specific right as absolute is more connected not with the prohibition to limit it but with its significant meaning. It instead characterises absolute rights as natural and inalienable, although not all absolute rights are. The author claims that free will can be considered an absolute right from which other rights arise. The researcher cites an analogy when the absolute right to life gives rise to the right to health care, which gives rise to a whole series of patient rights. As a result, the author emphasises the possibility of assuming that free will is one of the absolute rights from which all others derive. At the same time, it is noted that the possibility of defining freedom of will as a personal non-property right or a principle of law requires a separate study.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.055
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0140.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACTUAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207