The Comparative Analysis of the Structure and Legal Technique of the Electoral Acts of the Russian Federation, France and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reasons the necessity to perform an analysis of the contemporary legal regulation of elections in Russian Federation not only in aspect of its content, but also in aspect of the structure and legal technique used in the corresponding legal texts. The author notes the recent development of the Russian electoral legislation shows its inner logic and less and less reflects the features of its Western European sources. Analysis and comparison of the structure and legal technique is conducted of the following electoral legal acts: Russian Federal Laws "On the principal guarantees of the Russian citizens' electoral rights and its right to participate in referendum" and "On the elections of the State Duma deputies", Electoral Code of France and Canada Elections Act. On the base of collected information which includes newly found actual data the author argues highs and lows of the discovered approaches of respective national legislator and surmises motives which could determine them. Comparison of Russian electoral acts to its foreign counterparts confirms general similarity of its content while different approaches to the structure and important specifics of the completeness and particularity of the legal regulation of electoral relations. On example of the Electoral Code of France it is shown that the complication of the legal act structure by extensive use of the "general rule - specific rule" pattern is favorable only in the limited number of cases. The conclusion is made that the distinctive feature of the Russian electoral legislation is a consistent adherence to the principle which demands to place articles in an order determined by the sequence of the electoral procedure stages. Also the Russian electoral legislation is differentiated by unreasonable growth of the articles as base structure elements of legal acts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".