Bibliographic record
Abstract
The system of financial control in different countries have differences due to their financial and industrial development, the degree of centralization of economic management and the social, historical and legal peculiarities. The value of the state financial control is the formation of a complete and objective picture of the state financial flows, financial-economic activity of economic entities. State financial control in the Russian Federation aims to ensure the implementation of a single financial, credit and monetary policy, the protection of the financial interests of the Russian Federation. State financial control is intended for realization of the state financial policy, creating conditions for financial stabilization. In all states, depending on the specifics of their device had worked out a system of financial control. The implementation of any major program necessarily includes a control subsystem. The organ of control under the legislature considered the most important element of the state financial control in all democratic countries. As a rule, in all countries there are special institutions of parliamentary control over the expenditure of public funds: in Russia the Accounts chamber of the Russian Federation, USA the Main budgetary-control management of the Congress, the UK National audit office, Canada Office of the General auditor, in France the Court of accounts, in Sweden a National audit office, in Austria, Germany, Hungary accounts chamber of the Bundestag and Parliament. The state financial control authorities, as a rule, play a major and active role in the management of public finances. Existing in Russia bodies of state financial control in the majority independent, and their activity is efficient and effective.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".