MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES IN THE LEADING COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD: MACROLEVEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article identifies the peculiarities of managing the activity of enterprises of the construction industry at the macro level in the leading countries of the world, such as: USA, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France and other EU countries. The main directions of macro-regulation of activity of the enterprises of the construction industry are the bodies of state regulation of activity of the enterprises of the construction industry; legal support (licensing of construction activities; documenting the start of construction works; commissioning of a construction site, etc.), as well as technical regulation (requirements for the construction process, qualification requirements for workers, requirements for technical supervision, etc.). The common features, which are characteristic of most countries of the world regarding the macro-regulation of the activity of the construction industry enterprises are established: stable balance of economic and social interests of the participants of the construction market; refusal of the state from the established historical monopoly on the technical regulation of the construction market and the gradual transition to a system of technical self-regulation; high degree of economic and creative freedom of the objects of regulation; developed social and economic institutes of the construction industry; deep integration of the institutions of the construction industry of a particular state into a single world socio-economic system due to the harmonization of the principles of technical regulation, with the diversity of forms of implementation of these principles, taking into account national peculiarities; high level of building culture. The main differences in the macro-regulation of the activity of construction industry enterprises are identified, which are the technical regulation and legal support in different countries of the world, which depend on the individual conditions of development and activity of each individual state.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".