MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Қазақстан Республикасында вандализм үшін жауаптылықтың құқықтық реттелуі және алдын алу мәселелері

2025· article· W7165171335 on OpenAlexaff
N.D. Tleshaliev, Sh.K. Amirbekova

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific works Adilet · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmRelevance (law)The RepublicLiabilityProperty (philosophy)Legal liabilityLegal research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article comprehensively examines the legal nature of vandalism, the degree of its social danger, and the specific features of its legal regulation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The relevance of the study is обусловлена the increasing number of cases of damage to property in public places, desecration of historical and cultural heritage sites, and harm to public infrastructure. The article provides a legal analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Kazakhstan that establish liability for acts of vandalism. In addition, based on legal statistics, the dynamics of vandalism-related offenses in the country are examined. The study analyzes the main forms of manifestation of vandalism and its socio-psychological causes and proposes a scientific classification of its various types. The authors substantiate that vandalism is closely related to the level of legal culture in society, the characteristics of youth social behavior, and the degree of citizens’ responsibility for public property. The results of the study demonstrate that the prevention of vandalism requires not only strengthening legal liability but also the implementation of a comprehensive policy aimed at improving citizens’ legal culture, enhancing mechanisms for the protection of public property, and systematically implementing preventive measures.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.017
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.011

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific works AdiletSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207