MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096401751 · doi:10.32631/pb.2020.2.09

Public Administration in the Field of Using and Protecting Land Resources: International Experience and Ukrainian Realities

2020· article· en· W3096401751 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw and Safety · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLand Use and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianLand managementLand administrationLegislationGovernment (linguistics)Field (mathematics)CadastreBusinessIncentiveEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementLand usePolitical sciencePublic administrationEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalized experience of management in the field of using and protecting land resources in such countries as Denmark, Canada, Latvia, Germany, Poland, the USA, Switzerland, France and others, as well as features of management realization of this sphere in Ukraine have been considered. The purpose of the article is to determine the possibility and feasibility of introducing some elements of positive experience of management of developed countries into Ukraine in the field of use and protection of land resources. The methodological basis of the article is a set of general scientific and special research methods. In particular, the method of analysis allowed to study the features of the management of developed countries in the field of use and protection of land resources and to identify inconsistencies in the provisions of national legislation regulating land relations; The comparative legal method was used to compare foreign and Ukrainian experience of management in the field of use and protection of land resources, as well as the possibility of using certain measures aimed at the rational use of land in Ukraine. Two types of measures used in other countries to ensure the rational use and protection of land resources have been identified and considered: administrative (which are the form of implementation of state land policy and part of government activities) and economic (which are positive or negative incentives for land owners and users). The main problems that exist in the field of land management in Ukraine have been revealed. It has been emphasized that the State Service of Ukraine for Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre performs at the same time diametrically opposed powers, which are conducive to corruption. It has been concluded that in order to ensure the rational use and protection of land resources, especially in the conditions of opening the land market in Ukraine, it is necessary to adopt the experience of more developed countries and make appropriate amendments to national legislation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it