MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126080726 · doi:10.70651/3083-6018/2025.12.13

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF JURY FUNCTIONING: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

2025· article· W7126080726 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

VenueSocial Development Economic and Legal Issues · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJury Decision Making Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuryHung juryJury trialJurisdictionInstitutionAdversarial systemConstitutional lawConstitutionEconomic JusticeSeparation of powers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contemporary constitutional law, citizen participation in the administration of justice through jury and lay judge institutions is traditionally regarded as a form of implementing the principle of popular sovereignty in the judicial sphere. However, domestic constitutional law scholarship lacks a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of constitutional models for regulating jury trials, which complicates determining optimal pathways for developing this institution in Ukraine. The purpose of this study is to clarify the features of constitutional regulation of the jury trial institution in foreign countries, identify the main models of such regulation, and determine the specifics of the Ukrainian constitutional model of popular participation in the administration of justice. The article systematizes three main approaches to the constitutional enshrinement of popular participation in justice: direct establishment of jury trials as an element of the judicial system with definition of its status and competence; formulation of a general principle of administering justice on behalf of the people without specifying institutional forms; absence of special constitutional provisions with delegation of regulation to ordinary legislation. Two main models of lay judge participation are identified: the classical Anglo-American model with clear separation of functions between jurors and professional judges, and the continental model of a unified panel of professional judges and lay assessors. It is established that states of the Anglo-American legal tradition constitutionally guarantee jury participation in both criminal and civil cases, while European and post-Soviet countries limit their jurisdiction primarily to criminal cases. An analysis of constitutional provisions on jury trials in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Hungary, Austria, and post-Soviet states is conducted. It is concluded that Ukraine occupies an intermediate position in the system of global approaches, as the Constitution does not limit jury jurisdiction to criminal cases only, creating potential for introducing their participation in civil proceedings. Constitutional enshrinement provides the jury institution with enhanced legal protection and links it to the fundamental principles of popular sovereignty and democratic organization of state power.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.307 · 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