Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. There is no country where corruption would not take a place all. Just need to distinguish between petty corruption when officials take bribes from citizens, and corruption at the highest level, when a major government official receives a reward, for example, the allocation of public orders or pushing favourable laws for someone interests. In this regard, the particular interest attracts the state, attained some success in the fight against corruption. The idea of isolating anti-corruption programs that have proven their effectiveness in practice, is enormous potential for positive borrowing of foreign experience. Key words: corruption, anti-corruption activities, national security. The top ten or twenty rated of the level of corruption countries, which formed the anti-corruption strategy at the state level and managed to reduce its level to the minimum, are: Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, Singapore, Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Australia, Switzerland , United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Austria, Israel, the US, Chile, Ireland, Germany, Japan. In countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden or Denmark, petty corruption is practically impossible. The fact is that in the public mind there is cultivated commands respect by officials as the person who performs the important task - pursuing a policy of the state and serves a population. Even if an official working in the government, it does not change with the arrival of a new prime minister [1]. Therefore, the main task of the officials is to keep loyalty to the state, rather than a particular person. Some features of the organization of anti-corruption activities in the above relatively healthy countries are as follows. Corruption is realized by their governments as a serious national security issue. In this case, corruption is seen as external and internal threats. Clearly separated two aspects of corruption: political and economic. The development of political corruption can lead to uncontrolled political situation in the country and poses a threat to democratic institutions and the balance of the
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".