Structural and substantive reatures of defense codes of foreign countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is intended for the study of the issue of systematization of the laws in the field of defense through its codification. It was found that codification is recognized as the highest level and the most perfect type of systematization of the laws, as a result of which a large number of separate legal acts are replaced by one single, consolidated, updated codified legal act. The relevance of the problem is substantiated by the presence of a state task defined by the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated November 8, 2019 No. 837 "On urgent measures to carry out reforms and strengthen the state", regarding the need to implement measures to codify the laws in the field of defense. In order to carry out a complete and thorough study, a comparative and legal review of codified legislative acts in the field of defense of five leading democratic countries of the world: Australia, Canada, Poland, the USA, and France was carried out. Special attention is paid to the structures of defense codes, to the study of the content of their main constituent elements and to the comparison of these constituents, with the aim of identifying similar subjects of regulation, as well as identifying differences. In the course of the study, it was found that the defense codes of foreign countries have very diverse structures, and also regulate a fairly wide range of issues, both general and specific (for each country). All codes are based on the basic aspects on which the defense policy of every state is formed, and therefore, logically, they can become the basis for building the structure of the defense code of Ukraine. As a conclusion, it is stated that the result of a complex and high-quality systematization of the laws in the field of defense can be the Defense Code of Ukraine - a unique, innovative and reforming act that will unite all issues related to the preparation of the state for defense and its direct implementation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".