Proceduralne gwarancje związane z wydaleniem cudzoziemca ze względów bezpieczeństwa państwa - uwagi na kanwie sprawy Chakiba Marakchiego
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the case of the Moroccan citizen Chakib Marakchi who was expelled from Poland in 2009 on security grounds and his personal data were inserted into the Schengen Information System. The expulsion decision, which had been upheld by the administrative organ of second instance and the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw, was eventually quashed by the Supreme Administrative Court in December 2011 and the case was remitted for rehearing. Marakchi and his legal counsel attempted to have access to the reasons given for the expulsion. The article explores which legal measures are available under Polish law (including the Constitution) and the European Convention on Human Rights to the expelled individual. In the context of the European Convention of special importance is Article 1 of Protocol no. 7 and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The Strasbourg Court requires that the reasons given for expulsion order are verified by the appeal organs (or/and courts). Furthermore, in some states there exists a special lawyer who may access classified documents (security-cleared counsel in Canada and special advocate in the UK and New Zealand). No such measures are known in Polish law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".