Variety between regions legal systems, danger of disintegration and question about future of the Union /A philosophical study about effect of Variety between legal systems on unity and disintegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, we followed an analytical and comparative method, to study and discuss the right of the regions in the federal state to have legal system, and then we dealt with the effect of the variation between the legal systems of the regions on the future of the union. we concluded that one or more regions in the federal state may have a different legal system, this variation may be explicitly like province of Quebec in Canada, and Louisiana state in USA, or may be implicitly like South Africa, which followed a hybrid legal system. this variety between legal systems of the federal state doesn’t threat on the future of the Union, but if it is not properly handled, then the Union will be faced to danger of disintegration and abolition. In order to ensure the success of federalism in Iraq, we have proposed that a mixed legal system will be adopted in Iraq, both at the federal and regions levels, and that each region will be given the right to choose its legal system and to choose how to regulate legal relations within the borders of the region, with binding by bases, principals and purposes of the Union. Keywords: purpose of law, conflict, proximity, shariaah, sources of law.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".