MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Institutionalization of lobbying in Ukraine: theoretical and legal foundations and models of implementation

2025· article· uk· W7116781867 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUkrainian Legal and Forensic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Civil societyAccountabilityLegislationPoliticsNormativeInstitutionalisationShadow (psychology)State (computer science)Language change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the phenomenon of lobbying as one of the key civilized technologies of influence on the formation of public policy in democratic countries and analyzes the current state of its legal regulation in Ukraine. Lobbying in its modern sense appears as a legitimate instrument for representing and protecting the interests of various social groups, businesses, professional communities, and civil society institutions. In developed democracies such as the United States, Canada, and EU member states, lobbying activities are strictly regulated by special legislation that defines the status of lobbyists, procedures for registration, reporting mechanisms, and ensures transparency in interactions between the private sector and public authorities. Such regulatory models promote openness of the political process, reduce corruption risks, and ensure a balance of interests. Despite long-standing discussions on the need to legalize lobbying, Ukraine is still at the stage of developing normative approaches to its regulation. Key challenges include the absence of a clear legal definition of lobbying activities, the lack of regulation of the status of lobbyists, the opacity of private influence on decision-making processes, and high corruption risks. The article emphasizes that the shadow nature of lobbying practices undermines public trust in state institutions and complicates Ukraine’s integration into the European legal space, where transparency and accountability are fundamental principles of public governance. Special attention is paid to the comparative analysis of international models of lobbying regulation that may be implemented within Ukraine’s legal system. The article highlights the importance of adopting a special law on lobbying, establishing public registers of lobbyists, and introducing mechanisms of oversight and liability for violations of lobbying rules. It is argued that the legalization of lobbying in Ukraine can ensure transparency in the decision-making process, contribute to the development of democratic institutions, reduce corruption levels, and create civilized mechanisms for representing public and private interests within state policy formation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.349 · 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