MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ACTS ON PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FREEDOM OF SCIENCE

2023· article· en· W4392525383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aslonova Laylo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Law, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCITESLawPolitical scienceSubject (documents)CreativityLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the legislation of foreign countries, as well as precedents for restricting the freedom of science. The article cites the laws of foreign countries, such as the USA, Sweden, France, Canada and others, which regulate the limitations of the subject of scientific research. In addition, the precedent of the French court on this issue is given. As a result of this article, a comparative analysis of the regulation by legal acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan of the admissibility of restricting the freedom of scientific creativity is carried out.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Political Science Law and CriminologySame topicEducation, Law, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207