On the Experience of Legal Regulation of the Principle of Publicity of Local Authorities in German Law
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the experience of legal regulation of the key principle of organizing the local authorities—publicity in the legal acts of Germany. The structure of the German state and Russia is a federation and this fact affects the law making activity. It is carried out by a federation, its entities and municipalities. The analysis aims at identification of the specific features which reflect the principle of publicity in regulations. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that the law of the lands bears the main burden of regulation in this area. The examples of specific rules of Bavaria testify that many of them contain elements of the principle of publicity of local authorities. In particular, a great attention is paid to the issues of civil initiatives, civil solutions and civil petitions in the Bavarian legal acts, which, according to the author, should be attributed to the basic elements of the analyzed principle of publicity. Research of the German experience has shown that existence of a legal basis for publicity enables the citizens to participate in decisions making of the municipal bodies, as well as directly make their own proposals for improving various spheres of their local life. Such approach proves that it is the principle of publicity that creates conditions for the activity of the population in their place of residence. Thus, we achieve the important objective to ensure the effectiveness of the local government.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it