“Service” Municipal Administration: The Main Components of Model and Its Development in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementation of the “public service” model is possible if its components are thoroughly thought-out: purpose and functions of governing boards are definite, conditions for achieving the desired result are set, and initial condition of public management system allows the development. In the modern literature the role of local government is reduced to the execution of policy of the central government. The authors see the development of public services primarily in economic and organizational aspects. The purpose of this article is to identify the major elements of the integrated model of “public service” as a model of a new relationship between municipal authority and local community, as well as to analyze the current state of municipal administration in Russia. The analysis of scientific publications, the content analysis of sites of the Russian municipalities and the opinion poll of municipal employees were used as the main methods of research. The following article: 1) defines a set of basic elements of the “service” model for municipal administration; 2) describes the gap between the “model” and the current state of “service” municipal administration in Russia; 3) suggests social technologies for the approximation of municipal administration to the desirable state.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".