Analysis of Foreign Experience in the Financial Regulation of the Arctic Territories Development and its Application in the Northern Regions of the Russian Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines foreign experience in implementing regional financial policy in relation to the Arctic territories. It assesses the experience of such sub-arctic countries as Canada, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the USA. The paper identifies two groups of financial instruments of territorial devel-opment: within the framework of general regional policy (instruments of fiscal capacity equalization, taxa-tion instruments, instruments to increase investment attractiveness) and within the framework of special policy for the development of Arctic territories (program-targeted instruments, special development funds, direct allocation of funds for current expenses and development). It is concluded that the Arctic countries apply different approaches and tools to the development of the regions located in the Arctic zone, the choice of which is determined by the type of state structure, the degree of financial independence of the regions in the sphere of financial regulation, the level of development of the northernmost subjects compared to the rest of the country. In the conditions of Russia, it is possible to use the best foreign experience in the sphere of financial regulation of development of the regions located in the Arctic zone. In particular, it is possible to use the experience of applying program-targeted development tools, the formation of special development funds, which are based on revenues from the use of natural resources of the Arctic, as well as the experience of creating favourable conditions to attract investors for the implementation of economically attractive projects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".