International experience of legal regulation of housing fund managementi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reforms in housing and communal services taking place in our country in recent years are of great importance,they concern the interests of all citizens – residents, homeowners, consumers of housing and communal services.The purpose of this article is to analyze the issuesand how to apply international experience in housing management in national legislation. In time works above article will be used general scientific and special methods of jurisprudence: formally-legal and relatively-legal. In Ukraine, on August 1, 2018, there are 28,838 associations of co-owners of apartment buildings and housing cooperatives.Now the society is increasingly raised the issue of qualitative indicators of housing and communal servicesand it is determined by their poor condition, with numerous emergencies that have received publicity in the society. Thus, there is a need to reform the industry, both in terms of management, financial relations, and in the issue of regulatory support of the industry. Given the importance of this issue for Ukraine, studied experience of the USA, Canada and Germany on the activities of management companies in Housing infrastructure of the city or an entire district,carried outcomparative analysis of the functions of the manager in various models of economies.As a result of the study, on the example of the positive experience of the activities of condominiums in selected foreign countries,are proposedways to improve the legal regulation of condominiums in Ukraine, given the introduction of elements of decentralization and effective administration of the housing and utilities market. Key words: housing stock, housing management, condominium, European condominium law.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".