MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406768567 · doi:10.32518/sals4.2024.260

Conceptual principles of ensuring the rights of servicemen in administrative proceedings

2024· article· en· W4406768567 on OpenAlex
Dmytro Shvets, А. А. Radchuk, Maksym Korniienko, Anton Galaj, Nataliia Bilak

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial & Legal Studios · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relevance of this topic is stipulated by the need to improve judicial mechanisms for the protection of the rights of servicemen, taking into account changes in legislation related to martial law, the need to harmonise national legislation with international standards, and the growing public demand for transparent protection of the rights of servicemen. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively examine the approaches to ensuring the rights of servicemen in the administrative proceedings. The study used a comparative method of analysing the legislative provisions and court practice governing the administrative protection of military personnelʼs rights. A systematic analysis of court decisions in cases involving military personnel is carried out. The author identifies the main obstacles to effective protection of the rights of this category of persons, among which is the lack of special procedural guarantees. Recommendations are made to improve the legal framework to enhance the level of judicial protection of the military. The study also analysed the international experience of such countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey, and Israel. The study showed that in the United States, the rights of the military are protected through specialized military courts, as well as through civilian courts, where the rights of military personnel are protected under human rights laws and federal legislation. In the UK and Canada, case law actively promotes the protection of the military in administrative proceedings. In Turkey and Israel, the existence of military courts allows for prompt resolution of discipline and service issues. At the same time, the protection of the rights of servicemen in these countries is based on national human rights legislation, and only the member states of the Council of Europe that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights take into account the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights in their case law. The findings of the study confirmed the importance of adapting the best international practices to build an effective system of administrative judicial protection of the rights of servicemen in Ukraine, in particular through the implementation of international standards and the creation of specialized legal institutions for the military

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.279 · 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