Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the sources of formation of the doctrine of international circular law. Circular law is defined as a set of legal norms that define and regulate social relations in the field of a circular economy. The authors insist that circular law as a branch of international public law is now only being formed. The research shows that circular law is influenced by many factors in the process of its formation. Among them, the authors singled out a close connection with the norms of international public law and its branch - international economic law. In particular, they noted that general multilateral treaties play a significant role in circular law. The study reveals a great influence of international universal organizations (UN) and regional organizations (EU) on the development and formation of circular law. A peculiar role in the development of circular law at the international level was played by international environmental conferences, at which declarations were adopted outlining special environmental principles. The authors pay attention to the concept of sustainable development and emphasize that the concept most accurately defines the essence of the circular economy. Such a clear definition has had the greatest impact on the formation of international and national circular law. Moreover, a number of national legal acts of Germany, Great Britain, Finland, Denmark, Scotland, Australia, China, Canada, the United States, Japan, and some others have also made a significant contribution to the process of formation of circular law. It is worth noting that the important basis of circular law lies in the provision of human rights. The authors propose such a definition of the doctrine of circular law as a legal theory, which is formed on the basis of the norms of national and international law, the law-making of international organizations and reflects the transition of mankind to a circular economic model.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".