Развитие сельских территорий: Зарубежный опыт
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considered foreign experience of development of rural territories. Rural territories play a significant role when forming image of the state on the world scene as, rural territories ensure food security of the country which is part of national security. Russia is, certainly, the country having considerable territorial resources which greatest part, undoubtedly, can be rural territories. Therefore the analysis of foreign experience of development of the rural territory will allow to modernize rural territories and to give them a new impetus in development. The acts adopted by the different states for support and development of the rural territories can be one of bases for comparison. There are two conceptual models of the state support of development of local spatial systems of rural type. In the first model a condition and mechanisms of the state support fixed within the uniform act. This model exists in the European Union, the Russian Federation, Canada, Turkey. In the second model there are various programs which realization can happen independently from each other. This model exists in the USA, Mexico, New Zealand. The policy of rural development of the EU and the USA has many common goals, however mechanisms and the priority directions of realization, definition of a role of agrarian production in development of local spatial systems of rural type differ a little. As showed synthesis of references, there are main directions of the state support of rural territories abroad which realization promotes effective use of resources of agriculture, modernization of production and development of innovations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.023 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".