Theoretical issues of improvement of criminal-executive legislation of Ukraine and practice of its application.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article reflects the results of scientific researches of scientists of the sector of study of problems of criminal-executivelegislation on the fundamental topic «Theoretical issues of improvement of criminal-executive legislation of Ukraine andpractice of its application», Аcademician Stashis Scientific Research Institute for the Study of Crime Problems NationalAcademy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine in the period from the first quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2021. Theobjectives, objectives and methods of the research are shown.In a substantive way, the abstract forms cover the multi-issueproblems raised in their publications by the developers of a fundamental topic and reasoned relevant proposals to overcomecertain flaws of the current criminal-executive legislation. Scientific research is characterized not only by the statementof disadvantage shortcomings in the field of execution of punishments and probation, but also by attempts to investigatethe historical origins of modern problems of criminal-executive legislation, to study the ways of its improvement. Whileworking on the topic, it became necessary to investigate and predict possible problems in criminal-executive law throughthe already developed draft new criminal code, which will be crucial for the future of criminal-executive legislation.Through most of the scientific papers of scientists, the idea of the need to appeal to modern international experience inthe field of treatment of convicts passes through the red tape. The proposed novelties are mainly due to the need to implementrecommendations contained in international standards for the treatment of convicts in domestic criminal-executivelegislation.Keywords: criminal-enforcement legislation, execution of punishments, probation, treatment of convicts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".