Public hearing procedure in the management of city development: analysis of the world experience
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
In recent decades, public participation in the management of urban development programs has become one of the most important aspects for the sustainable development of the society. The article focuses on public hearing method that aims to extend citizen involvement in the management of the community. The authors consider the ways of organizing and holding public hearings and public discussions examine the effective factors of the international experience, analyze legislative and regulatory documents, and study different conduct procedures and methodological materials related to the topic. The study investigates the comparative analysis of the procedures for conducting public hearings in Russia, Australia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, and India. The authors arrive to the conclusion that each country has developed specific context-based procedure strategies for citizen participation in discussing important social problems that depends on actual social development, democracy level and the forms of local self-government. The study identifies the shortcomings of the Russian legislation on public hearings and public discussions in that may lead to the lack of citizen participation in management urban affairs and therefore requires improvement using positive experience of other countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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