Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the experience of Poland, Spain, Austria, France, Italy, Germany, USA, Denmark, Israel, Croatia, Australia, Canada, and South Korea in the social protection of combatants and identifies the specifics and common features of this system. It is emphasized that the social protection of combatants in foreign countries combines the system of state social protection of the population and civil society institutions. Its characteristic feature is the involvement of local authorities in the implementation of ensuring the social needs of combatants on the ground, the use of the possibilities of public-private partnership mechanisms. It is noted that the direct beneficiaries of social protection of combatants are territorial communities. It is noted that in the conditions of the Russian-Ukrainian war, a social caste of military personnel has formed who need the provision of social services, provision of various social benefits, compensations, and guarantees. It is emphasized that the system of social protection of combatants in Ukraine requires: mobilization of resources; combining the efforts of all stakeholders, including government, business, and the public; creating favourable conditions for the successful return of veterans to civilian life and restoring their active participation in community life. It is noted that the identified common features of social protection of combatants in foreign countries provide an opportunity to accumulate knowledge, practice, methods, technologies, and innovations that can help solve certain problems and tasks related to social protection of combatants in our country.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".