Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the law and security is quite a complex and controversial issue.It largely stems from the perspective differences in defining the concepts of security and law as well as the various ways these two are related to one another.In between, the incongruence of the existent literature about security accounts for the greatest share.The primary goal of the present study is elaboration of the fundamental relationship between law and security.The study is a subjective research conducted based on grounded theorization.Based thereon, to elucidate the relationship between law and security, meanwhile seminally pointing to the concept of security and defining it through taking advantage of interdisciplinary research, the selected concept of the author is subsequently offered for security.Next, the theory related to law and security is investigated under the general title of order/rule foundations.The aforesaid investigation signifies that, meanwhile assuming a default definition of rule and order, the perspective based on the mutual relationship between rule and order directs our attentions to the importance of the legal and philosophical indicators in understanding and offering a functional aspect of security and elaborates their role in creation of security.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.958 | 0.948 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".