The Strategic Development Planning of Local Governments, Following the Examples of Foreign Countries (article in Lithuanian)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the problems of self-government institutions and the notion of spatial planning, analyzing the examples of the development plans of local governments and legal regulation of planning in various countries. The author presents the structure of the development plans of Oxford, Nova Scotia, Auckland, and Warsaw and analyses Lithuanian local governments’ development planning based on regional planning and revision methodology. The analysis of the countries that have old strategic planning traditions shows that the issues of local government strategic planning are regulated by law in many cases. In Canada and New Zealand, strategic planning is governed by laws, and in the United Kingdom there is a separate law that regulates the whole planning system. In Lithuania and Poland, local government development planning is not defined by laws. The most important feature of the UK strategic planning system is that local development documents reflect government policies, which are associated with area development and utilisation. Strategic planning policy supports spatial area development and is a combination of a general area plan and strategic development plan. The main normative limitations are related to the development of respective areas (protected areas, regional parks, etc). Local development plans are coordinated with regional strategic plans. Various interest groups are involved in local development planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".