MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CONCEPT AND SCOPE OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE ENTITIES’ COMPETENCE IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND CANADA

2017· article· en· W2604891953 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Enforcement Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)LegislatorDecentralizationAutonomyPolitical scienceCorporate governancePublic administrationLaw and economicsLawSociologyLegislationPsychologySocial psychologyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

УДК 342.25 The purpose of this article is to study the concept and the content of "competence" cate-gory in relation to the entities of municipal governance in Russia and Canada. The methods of theoretical analysis, along with legal methods, including formal-legal and comparative law methods are used to achieve this goal. In the article, the author notes the lack of consensus in legal science in determining the con-tent of "competence" category and its subjective identity. Some authors consider the compe-tence as a set of rights and obligations of public authorities (Yu.A. Tikhomirov, S.A. Avakyan), while others recognize the correct use of the word "competence" in relation to the public territorial collectives and institutions of public power in general (T.M. Byalkina et al.). The Russian legal model for determining the competence of municipal governance entities also implies the distinction between the concepts of "local issues" and "powers." Unfortu-nately, the domestic legislator does not provide for the clear distinction of these concepts, and there is also a lack of content specification of the issues to be addressed at the local level. Recent changes in law also call into question the relation between the municipalities’ competency model and the constitutional autonomy of local government. At the base of the approach to the definition of the competence of municipal government entities in Canada, as well as within the Anglo-Saxon model in general, lies the need for decentralization of functions, which cannot be effectively carried out by the central author-ities or the private sector (A. Sancton). The competence carrier here is a municipality as a form of public corporation. This does not lead to contradiction between this carrier and other municipal governance entities (specifically, local authorities), as the latter carry out activities for the competence implementation on behalf of the corporation. The approach to the municipality as a corporation originally anticipated the use of the ultra vires doctrine, which excludes from municipal jurisdiction the issues and powers not ex-pressly granted by statute. However, the analysis of the dynamics of legislative and judicial practice in Canada demonstrates a departure from this fundamental principle in favor of expanding the municipal competence, based on the goals of municipalities’ activities. The author believes that such an approach is contrary to the legal nature of municipal corporations, and therefore the rules governing the competence of municipalities and the rules governing their legal status in general need to be harmonized. Based on the above, the author concludes that in Russia and Canada both theoretical and normative work is required to eliminate defects and optimize the functional load of munic-ipal governance entities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it