Approaches to understanding corruption in international and national legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
affects all aspects of social life and consciousness, undermining the foundations of social values and state authority. The authors draw attention to the lack of a single definition of corruption in international documents, which calls for a deeper analysis and understanding of corruption. At the same time, it is emphasized that Ukrainian legislation, in response to this, is trying to provide legislative regulation of corruption, directing efforts to adapt to international standards and develop a comprehensive approach to defining and fighting it. It has been established that, compared to Ukraine, countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Canada and Finland approach the issue of corruption differently. They do not have a clear legal definition of corruption, nor do they classify it as a separate category of offenses. This approach is aimed at ensuring flexibility in solving issues related to corruption, adapting to national characteristics and needs. The review of scientific approaches to the definition of corruption also made it possible to demonstrate its diverse interpretation depending on the context and discipline. The analysis confirms two main directions in the study of corruption: as a criminal act and as a social phenomenon affecting various aspects of public life. In the first case, corruption is viewed through the prism of the illegal use of state powers for personal enrichment, while in the second case, it is seen as a manifestation of social problems, including the abuse of power. In the conclusions, the author states that corruption, as a complex multifaceted phenomenon, requires an integrated approach to its analysis and understanding, which covers both legal and social factors. The limited perception of corruption exclusively within the legal framework does not allow to fully cover all its complexity and multiplicity of manifestations. Thus, research on corruption and efforts to reduce it must be multifaceted, taking into account a variety of factors, including historical, cultural, social, and economic contexts.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".