MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416309817 · doi:10.26642/sas-2025-4(10)-56-63

Analysis of the experience in forming military legislation on military service in the armed forces of NATO member states

2025· article· W4416309817 on OpenAlex
Mark Andrusiak, Олександр Акімов, Ruslan Rusetskyi

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety and Security · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary doctrineMilitary threatMilitary justiceMilitary personnelLegislationContext (archaeology)Corporate governanceMilitary serviceHuman rightsDoctrine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a systematic analysis of NATO countries' military-legal models for regulating military service, aiming to identify effective mechanisms suitable for adaptation within the context of Ukraine’s national security and defense. The study encompasses both fundamental legal acts (constitutions, laws, statutes) and departmental regulations aligned with international standards. It is generalized that the legal systems of NATO member states are structured in a cascade–from overarching state principles to specific instructions–ensuring both the stability and flexibility of military governance amid dynamic threats. The research explores several national cases: the United States (UCMJ reform, Blended Retirement System, GI Bill), Germany (Soldatengesetz, social packages for contract soldiers, the legal doctrine of the “citizen in uniform”), France (ethical principles of military status), Poland (integration of voluntary contracts into the Total Defense model), Scandinavian countries (gender-neutral selective conscription), and Canada and Estonia (digital platforms for recruitment and personnel assessment). Special attention is devoted to comparing three models of military service–professional, mixed, and conscription-based–in terms of their social effectiveness, human resource capacity, and mobilization potential. It is demonstrated that NATO countries are gradually converging around key principles: rule of law, civilian oversight, and compliance with international humanitarian law norms and STANAG standards. Within disciplinary law, emphasis is placed on the gradual transition from authoritarian to rights-based models: independence of military prosecutors, access to legal counsel, and the functioning of military ombudsman institutions. The importance of social guarantees–from pension models to veteran reintegration and rehabilitation programs–is emphasized as a strategic component of personnel policy. The comparative analysis results in a set of practical recommendations for implementation: introducing short-term contracts with robust social packages, expanding the legal status of reservists, integrating digital platforms for recruitment and evaluation, and institutionalizing gender equality in personnel policy. The study concludes that the optimal model for Ukraine is a multi-level system of legal regulation of military service, which combines NATO standards with flexible adaptation to national needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it