Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Poland the term lobby has a number of meanings, which is undoubtedly the result of an absence o f a comprehensive and full legal regulation of this particular institution. The first part of the paper is therefore devoted to definitions of ‘lobby’ formulated in non-legal literature. Then, legal definitions of lobbying that operate in selected states (USA, Australia, Canada, Georgia and Lithuania) are presented. The last part of the paper contains presentation of common features of the analysed definitions. The terms „interest groups” as well as „lobby groups” with reference to the Private Members’ Bills concerning the phenomenon o f lobbying are also discussed. In its essence, the paper is a somewhat critical characteristics o f the Polish definition o f ‘lobbying’ shown on the basis of several problems that arose in the process o f the work o f the parliamentary Extraordinary Committee. In conclusion, several obervations de lege ferenda concerning the existing legal regulation are presented.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".