Методология качественной оценки оптимизации законодательства и правоприменительной практики на основе анализа больших данных дел об административных правонарушениях

Трофимов Егор Викторович; Мецкер Олег Геннадьевич

doi:10.7256/2454-0706.2020.10.34250


	Journal Menu > Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > Requirements for publication > Peer-review process > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy


	Journals in science databases


	About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents

Law and Politics

Reference:

Trofimov E.V., Metsker O.G. — Methodology for qualitative assessment of optimization of legislation and law enforcement practice based on big data analysis of the cases on administrative offences // Law and Politics. – 2020. – № 10. – P. 10 - 26. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2020.10.34250 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=34250

Methodology for qualitative assessment of optimization of legislation and law enforcement practice based on big data analysis of the cases on administrative offences

Trofimov Egor Viktorovich

ORCID: 0000-0003-4585-8820

Doctor of Law

Deputy Director for Science, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) of the All-Russian State University of Justice

199178, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, 10-ya liniya V.O., 19, lit. A, kab. 36

diterihs@mail.ru

Другие публикации этого автора

Metsker Oleg Gennad'evich

ORCID: 0000-0003-3427-7932

PhD in Technical Science

Researcher

199178, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, 10-liniya V.O., 19 lit. A

olegmetsker@gmail.com

Другие публикации этого автора

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0706.2020.10.34250

Review date:

29-10-2020

Publish date:

05-11-2020

Abstract: The subject of this research is the interdisciplinary legal and computer research tools and methods. The authors substantiate the interdisciplinary (legal-computational) methodology for automated analysis and assessment of qualitative changes in legislation and law enforcement practice. Interim results of the research project that are of methodological nature and cover methodological paradigm, principles, means and methods of scientific research are provided. The formulated conclusions represent a summary of heuristic search and computational experiments carried out in the domain field of administrative tort law, as well as comprehension of the process and results of research from both, legal and computer perspectives. Explanation is given to the interdisciplinary paradigm in the indicated methodological area. Leaning on the empirical evidence and observations, the author formulates the three research principles: principle of heterogeneity of domain, principle of discreteness of legal practice, and principle of identity of the model. As the key research tools, the author substantiates and tests in computational experiments the scientific information-analytical system, mathematical and social indicators have been developed, justified and tested in computational experiments. Computer methods (knowledge modeling, natural language processing, machine learning) that ensure automation of identification and usage of indicators mate with the dogmatic method, systemic analysis and expert assessment responsible for legal interpretation of computations. The legal and computer tools are determined for identification and usage of the principal indicators. In conclusion, the author outlines a number of problems and restrictions determined in the course of the conducted research.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, digital state, administrative responsibility, optimization of law, efficiency of law, computer methods, indicators, interdisciplinary study
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References

1.	Efimov A. A. Tsifrovaya demokratiya v Velikobritanii: teoriya i praktika gosudarstvennogo upravleniya i predostavleniya gosudarstvennykh uslug naseleniyu // Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'no-gumanitarnye issledovaniya. 2015. № 1. S. 126–133.
2.	Shchukina T. V. Administrativnoe usmotrenie i ego proyavlenie v administrativnykh protsedurakh: novye transformatsii v usloviyakh tsifrovogo gosudarstva i informatsionnogo obshchestva // Yuridicheskaya nauka. 2018. № 2. S. 137–141.
3.	Arkhipova Z. V. Transformatsiya «elektronnogo pravitel'stva» v «tsifrovoe pravitel'stvo» // Izvestiya Baikal'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2016. T. 26, № 5. S. 818–824. DOI: 10.17150/2500-2759.2016.26(5).818-824.
4.	Bradul N. V., Lebezova E. M. Kontseptualizatsiya ponyatiya «Smart Government»: naukometricheskii podkhod // Upravlenets. 2020. T. 11, № 3. S. 33–45. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2020-11-3-3.
5.	Housley W., Dicks B., Henwood K., Smith R. Qualitative methods and data in digital societies // Qualitative research. 2017. Vol. 17, № 6. Pp. 607–609. DOI: 10.1177/1468794117730936.
6.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Ispol'zovanie komp'yuternykh metodov i sistem v izuchenii prava, intellektual'nom analize i modelirovanii pravovoi deyatel'nosti: sistematicheskii obzor // Trudy Instituta sistemnogo programmirovaniya RAN. 2020. T. 32, vyp. 3. S. 147–170. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS-2020-32(3)-13.
7.	P'yanov N. A. O ponyatii metodologii yuridicheskoi nauki // Prolog: zhurnal o prave. 2014. T. 2, № 4. S. 17–24. DOI: 10.15727/2313-6715.2014.2.4.17-24.
8.	Papkovskaya P. Ya. Metodologiya nauchnykh issledovanii. Minsk: Informpress, 2002. 176 s.
9.	Kotenko V. P. Paradigma kak metodologiya nauchnoi deyatel'nosti // Bibliosfera. 2006. № 3. S. 21–25.
10.	Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii. M.: Progress, 1977. 300 s.
11.	Gerasimova I. A. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya ekonomiki i obshchestva: problemy metodologii issledovaniya // The Digital Scholar: Philosopher’s Lab / Tsifrovoi uchenyi: laboratoriya filosofa. 2019. T. 2, № 4. S. 21–29. DOI: 10.5840/dspl20192446.
12.	Yanitskii O. N. «Perekhod na tsifru»: nekotorye voprosy teorii i metodologii issledovaniya // Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya. 2019. № 17. S. 287–307. DOI: 10.19181/ezheg.2019.12.
13.	Serova O. A., Leskova Yu. G. Mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya: problemy metodologii // Metodologicheskie problemy tsivilisticheskikh issledovanii. 2020. T. 2, № 2. S. 267–280.
14.	Ali-zade A. A. Bol'shie dannye: novoe vremya dlya obshchestvennykh nauk // Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya: sb. nauch. tr. / otv. red. A. I. Rakitov. M.: INION RAN, 2018. 202 s. S. 26–54. DOI: 10.31249/scis/2018.00.03.
15.	Dimitrova S. V. Mezhdistsiplinarnost' i transdistsiplinarnost' v sovremennoi nauke // Nauchnyi rukovoditel'. 2016. № 4. S. 102–108.
16.	Bodrov A. A. Filosofiya bol'shikh dannykh v paradigme mezhdistsiplinarnykh issledovanii // Vestnik Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Ser.: Filosofiya. 2020. № 1. S. 14–21.
17.	Manokhina N. V. Transdistsiplinarnye podkhody v sovremennoi nauke // Vestnik Mezhdunarodnogo instituta ekonomiki i prava. 2013. № 1. S. 31–36.
18.	Dzhavadov Kh. A. Vliyanie ob''ekta i predmeta na formirovanie metodologii issledovaniya effektivnosti grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva // Naukovii vіsnik Natsіonal'nogo unіversitetu bіoresursіv і prirodokoristuvannya Ukraїni. Ser.: Pravo. 2015. Vyp. 213, ch. 1. S. 128–137.
19.	Mokii V. S., Luk'yanova T. A. Mezhdistsiplinarnye vzaimodeistviya v sovremennoi nauke: podkhody i perspektivy // Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoi Rossii. 2017. № 3. S. 7–21.
20.	Walker R. F., Oskamp A., Schrickx J. A., Opdorp G. J., Berg P. H. van den. PROLEXS: Creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain // International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1991. Vol. 35, № 1. Pp. 35–68. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7373(07)80007-1.
21.	Popple J. A pragmatic legal expert system. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. XVII, 384 pp. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1335176.
22.	Sanders K. E. CHIRON: Planning in an open-textured domain // Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2001. Vol. 9, № 4. Pp. 225–269. DOI: 10.1023/A:1013824413224.
23.	Ivanenko P. D. «Diskretnost' prava» i «diskretnost' zakonodatel'stva»: soderzhanie yavlenii, formy i prichiny // Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. «Pravo». 2014. T. 14, № 4. S. 78–83.
24.	Lapach V. A. Sistema ob''ektov grazhdanskikh prav: teoriya i sudebnaya praktika. SPb.: Izd-vo Yurid. tsentr Press, 2002. 544 s.
25.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Pravo i iskusstvennyi intellekt: opyt razrabotki vychislitel'noi metodologii dlya analiza i otsenki kachestvennykh izmenenii v zakonodatel'stve i pravoprimenitel'noi praktike (na primere stat'i 20.4 Kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh) // Pravo i politika. 2019. № 8. S. 1–17. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2019.8.30306.
26.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Pravo i iskusstvennyi intellekt: opyt razrabotki vychislitel'noi metodologii dlya intellektual'nogo analiza obshcherossiiskoi i regional'noi praktiki peresmotra sudami postanovlenii (reshenii) po delam ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh (na primere stat'i 20.4 Kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh) // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. 2019. № 7. S. 32–43. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2019.7.30351.
27.	Gavrish V. D. Sotsial'nye situatsii kak soderzhanie sotsial'nogo bytiya: prostranstvenno-vremennaya diskretnost' // Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye znaniya. 2013. № 8. S. 48–60.
28.	Skitovich V. V., Sedel'nik V. V. Predskazuemost' pravovogo regulirovaniya: postanovka problemy // Vestnik Grodnenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni Yanki Kupaly. Ser. 4: Pravovedenie. 2015. № 5. S. 33–40.
29.	Muzychuk E. S. Printsip predskazuemosti v rabote suda kak vazhneishee trebovanie demokratii // Paradigma pіznannya: gumanіtarnі pitannya. 2015. № 4. S. 40–56.
30.	Lipen' S. V. Prognosticheskaya metodologiya v yuridicheskikh issledovaniyakh // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2019. № 8. S. 5–13. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.8.1.
31.	Rissland E. L., Skalak D. B. CABARET: Rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture // International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1991. Vol. 34, № 6. Pp. 839–887. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W.
32.	Rissland E. L., Daniels J. J., Rubinstein Z. B., Skalak D. B. Case-based diagnostic analysis in a blackboard architecture // Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’93), Washington, DC, USA, July 11–15, 1993. Menlo Park: AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1993. 891 pp. Pp. 66–72. DOI 10.5555/1867270.1867281.
33.	Metsker O. G., Trofimov E. V. Sovershenstvovanie administrativno-deliktnogo regulirovaniya na osnove elektronnykh dannykh sudebnoi praktiki // Pravo. Obshchestvo. Gosudarstvo: sb. nauch. tr. studentov i aspirantov. T. 4 / redkol.: D. V. Rybin (pred.) [i dr.]. SPb.: S.-Peterb. in-t (fil.) VGUYu (RPA Minyusta Rossii), 2018. 152 s. S. 140–151.
34.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Pravo i iskusstvennyi intellekt: opyt vychislitel'nykh eksperimentov po modelirovaniyu i optimizatsii protsessov primeneniya zakonodatel'stva ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh s ispol'zovaniem metodov intellektual'nogo analiza i algoritmov mashinnogo obucheniya // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskoi yuridicheskoi akademii. 2018. № 3. S. 42–46.
35.	Velieva D. S., Presnyakov M. V. Sushchnost' printsipa pravovoi opredelennosti: v poiskakh konstitutsionno-pravovogo smysla // Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Ser.: Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo. 2019. T. 19, № 3. S. 302–309.
36.	Amosova T. V. Printsip pravovoi opredelennosti v zerkale lingvokul'tury // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Obrazovanie i pedagogicheskie nauki. 2017. Vyp. 2 (773). S. 106–118.
37.	Vorob'ev S. M., Polishchuk N. I. Teoretiko-pravovoi analiz metayuridicheskogo printsipa pravovoi opredelennosti // Teoriya gosudarstva i prava. 2019. № 2. S. 83–89.
38.	Karimova N. O. Komp'yuternaya identifikatsiya i sovremennye sistemy intellektual'noi obrabotki dannykh // Molodoi uchenyi. 2017. № 4 (138). S. 22–24.
39.	Avdeenko T. V. Razrabotka metodov issledovaniya strukturnoi identifitsiruemosti modelei v prostranstve sostoyanii: dis. d-ra tekh. nauk. Novosibirsk, 2003. 334 s.
40.	Prangishvili I. V., Lototskii V. A., Ginsberg K. S., Smolyaninov V. V. Identifikatsiya sistem i zadachi upravleniya: na puti k sovremennym sistemnym metodologiyam // Problemy upravleniya. 2004. № 4. S. 2–15.
41.	Novikov A. M., Novikov D. A. Metodologiya nauchnogo issledovaniya. M.: Librokom, 2010. 280 s.
42.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Sikorsky S., Kovalchuk S. Text and data mining techniques in judgment open data analysis for administrative practice control // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2019. Vol. 947. Pp. 169–180. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_13.
43.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Petrov M., Butakov N. Russian court decisions data analysis using distributed computing and machine learning to improve lawmaking and law enforcement // Procedia Computer Science. 2019. Vol. 156. Pp. 264–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.202.
44.	Metsker O., Trofimov E., Grechishcheva S. Natural language processing of Russian court decisions for digital indicators mapping for oversight process control efficiency: Disobeying a police officer case // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2020. Vol. 1135. Pp. 295–307. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39296-3_22.
45.	Davis K. E. Legal indicators: The power of quantitative measures of law // Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2014. Vol. 10, № 1. Pp. 37–52. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030857.
46.	Goutte C., Gaussier E. A Probabilistic interpretation of precision, recall and F-score, with implication for evaluation // Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2005. Vol. 3408. Pp. 345–359. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-31865-1_25.
47.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G. Indikatory optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i pravoprimeneniya i metody ikh identifikatsii i ispol'zovaniya na osnove bol'shikh dannykh (opyt vychislitel'nykh eksperimentov na sudebnykh aktakh po delam ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh, predusmotrennykh glavoi 18 Kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh) // Yuridicheskie issledovaniya. 2020. № 9. S. 33–46. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2020.9.34149.
48.	Trofimov E. V., Metsker O. G., Petrov M. V. Komp'yuterno-yuridicheskaya metodologiya kachestvennoi otsenki optimizatsii zakonodatel'stva i sudebnoi praktiki na osnove analiza bol'shikh dannykh: metody i metriki na primere administrativno-deliktnoi sfery // Aktual'nye voprosy razvitiya gosudarstvennosti i publichnogo prava: materialy VI mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. (Sankt-Peterburg, 25 sent. 2020 g.) / redkol.: D. V. Rybin (pred.) [i dr.]. SPb.: S.-Peterb. in-t (fil.) VGUYu (RPA Minyusta Rossii), 2020. 218 s. S. 175–178. DOI: 10.47645/978-5-6044512-3-6_2020_1_175.
49.	Yassine B. T., Nourredine F., Samir B., Idrissi M. K. The homogeneity indicator of learners in project-based learning // International Journal of Computer Science Issues. 2014. Vol. 11, № 1. Pp. 188–194.
50.	Dung P. M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games // Artificial Intelligence. 1995. Vol. 77, № 2. Pp. 321–357.

Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.