International experience of governing public control over activities of customs authorities: administrative legal aspect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an outcome of the study of international experience of governing public control over activities of customs authorities it is established that, according to the legislation of some developed countries (in particular, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom), advisory bodies at the customs service are to: (1) be headed by an official from among the management of the customs service; (2) be representative; (3) include only those representatives of the categories of participants in customs relations and other interested persons who meet the requirements for the appropriate level of qualification and professional experience; (4) be a permanent platform for exchanging information, comments and proposals with individuals and entities regarding the activities of customs authorities in its main areas both at the stage of development and at the stage of implementation of regulatory acts and administrative acts in order to find ways to harmoniously combine the goals and principles of state customs policy with the commercial interests of persons engaged in foreign economic activity. Measures to ensure the real impact of the results of public consultations on the activities of customs authorities in different countries include the possibility of: (a) administrative and judicial appeal of the relevant acts (Portugal, Romania, USA); (b) refusal to state registration of a regulatory acts in these circumstances (Bosnia and Herzegovina); (c) application of disciplinary sanctions to heads and other officials of customs authorities responsible for organizing public consultations for violating the procedure for their conduct (United Kingdom). In addition, measures to ensure the transparency of public consultations are also important, including the inclusion of their materials in the structure of the relevant act as an annex to it (Poland, USA, Croatia).
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".