PROBLEMS OF THE LEGAL REGULATION OF E-GOVERNMENT IN THE FIELD OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES
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
The purpose of this article is to identify the main conceptual apparatus in the field of e-government, to study the legislative regulation and practical implementation of e-government in Ukraine and abroad, as well as to identify the main activities for the effective implementation of e-government in the field of local self-government. The article analyzes the main conceptual apparatus in the field of e-government, and defines the concepts of “e-governance”, “e-democracy” and “e-voting”. The legal acts that regulate this sphere are reflected. The Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Approval of the Concept of Development of E-Governance in Ukraine” and the Ordinance of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Approval of the Concept of Development of E-Democracy in Ukraine and the Plan of Measures for Its Implementation” are analyzed. Best international e-government practices at local and regional levels in countries such as Australia, France, India and Canada are reviewed. The implementation of e-government tools in the field of local selfgovernment in Ukraine has been carried out − the official web sites of the cities have been researched and the criteria of their functioning are analyzed, there is an information about open module of the Information-analytical system “Transparent budget”, as well as information about electronic services that the Government Portal provides.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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