Development of research, practice and teaching of international law in Kazakhstan in the middle of the 20th – the first quarter of the 21st centuries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the directions of the formation of research, prac-tice and teaching of international law in Kazakhstan in the middle of the 20th – early 21st centuries. In the modern history of legal and political thought, the history of in-ternational legal science remains insufficiently studied. Its history contains a certain amount of raw information, indicating the level of political consciousness and legal thought, as well as containing data on the history of the formation and development of the science of international law. The relevance of the article was determined by the importance of preserving the scientific legal heritage, the possibility of using its achievements, the need to study the history of international legal science. Of particular significance is the study of the activities of researchers who pio-neered international legal science in Kazakhstan: A.A. Akkushkarov, Ya.B. Belson, U.S. Dzhekebayev, M.K. Yermagambetov, T.M. Kulteleyev, N.S. Sagindykov, M.A. Sarsembayev, etc. The subsequent development of international legal science is asso-ciated with monographic and other studies of the prominent legal scholar M.A. Sarsembayev. The study of the history of the science of international law, as part of the politi-cal and legal consciousness, is legitimate. Its resources contain a large potential that has not been fully used, and contribute to the formation of a direction for further re-search. An analysis of the formation and development of international legal science in Kazakhstan provides an opportunity to summarize some of the results of development in general, and to identify the key issues in its history.
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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it