Renegotiation and Early-Termination in Public Private Partnerships
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
Frequent occurrence of renegotiations and early-terminations in international contracts regarding the provision of public works and services through public private partnerships (PPPs) has raised concerns from various stakeholders in both public and private sectors. Renegotiations and early-terminations of PPP contracts may cause significant losses to the parties involved and reduce the perceived strengths and advantages of PPPs against traditional in-sourcing procurement. Through a comparative analysis of international government PPP guidelines and model contracts and multiple case studies of different types of PPP projects located worldwide, this study has identified and analyzed eight categories of risk events that often lead to renegotiation and early-termination in PPP practices, discussed the approaches to contingency management in view of such risk events, in particular the possible compensation methods respectively for the situations of renegotiation and early-termination, and established overall renegotiation and early-termination procedures. To improve PPP practices, public and private partners should build good relationships, prepare clear contract clauses, minimize opportunistic behavior and look for win-win solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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