Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right protected by the major international human rights instruments and national constitutions. The right to freedom of expression is treated as one of the key elements of a democratic society and it can be considered essential to human dignity. However, this right is not absolute and it can, if certain preconditions are met, be subjected to limitations, as indicated by the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Judges also enjoy the right to freedom of expression. Although the participation of judges in debates on matters of public interest is considered very important, especially when it comes to the regulation of the status of judiciary, the nature of the judicial function dictates restrictions on the freedom of expression of judicial office holders in order to protect public confidence in the judicial branch of government and its reputation. Public expression of personal views may raise dilemmas regarding the impartiality of a judge. The paper will draw attention to the importance of protecting the freedom of expression of judges, but also to the issue of necessity and legitimacy of its restrictions. Legal provisions regulating the right to freedom of expression of judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be examined, as well as examples from the practice of disciplinary bodies relating to the exercise of the aforementioned right. Legislative solutions adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be compared with provisions adopted in other countries and subjected to critical evaluation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".