QUESTIONS OF LIMITS OF LIMITATION OF SUBJECTIVE RIGHTS IN ABSOLUTE LEGAL RELATIONS: AN INTERSECTORAL APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: the presented article is devoted to the problems of determining the criteria for restrictions of subjective rights realized in absolute legal relations. The author positions the need to search for the “core” of absolute subjective law, defined as an indicator of the inadmissibility of any further restriction of it, through specific legal relations. In this connection, he applies an intersectoral approach to the analysis of the problems of the implementation of absolute legal relations: the branches of family, civil, and constitutional law are studied. The author notes the doctrinal and practical conflict-of-laws aspects of the sanctioned nature of restrictions on the realized paternity rights, patent rights, as well as inalienable constitutional rights in the conditions of an extraordinary regime of legal regulation. In the course of the analysis, relevant materials of domestic judicial practice are used. According to the author, the need for an authorized restriction is a prerequisite for changing the internal nature of a passive legal obligation on the part of obligated subjects in absolute legal relations. The obligation is mediated by state goal-setting and expediency, which cancels the unconditional classical nature of the absolute legal relationship.
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 | 0.026 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".