Державне стимулювання альтернативної енергетики: порівняльно-правовий аналіз
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
Hryhorieva K. State stimulationof alternative energy: comparativeand legal analysisThe article examines the systemsof state and legal incentives foralternative energy in differentcountries (EU, USA, Canada,Latin America, Australia, Malaysia,Indonesia). An unresolved problemhas been formulated, which is thelack of proper argumentation of theput forward political thesis about theneed to abandon the «green» tariff asthe main mechanism for supportingalternative energy, following theexample of other countries. With theactive use of the comparative legalmethod of scientific research, severalimportant conclusions were drawn.Each country has its own uniquelegislative provision of alternativeenergy, which confirms the opinionthat there are no better or worselegal models of such incentives – it isappropriate to talk about more optimaland less optimal legal mechanismsfor a particular country. Despite thediversity of alternative energy supportsystems, certain common features ofsuch legislation have been identified:a) the wide variety of approaches tothe promotion of alternative energy inthe world can be reduced to several keylegal mechanisms; b) a combination ofa certain dominant legal mechanism(most often it is a «green» tariff) anda number of additional ancillary legalincentive mechanisms; c) evolutionarytransformation of the system ofstimulation of alternative energy,which goes through several successivestages (levels). The generalizationof the experience of many countriesthat develop alternative energy,demonstrates the patterns of gradualevolution of such support, whichconsists in the multilevel developmentof the incentive system, namely:a) state incentives of the first level(economic); b) state incentives ofthe second level (environmental);c) state incentives of the third level(climate protection).Based on theidentified pattern, we can concludethat the Ukrainian legislation inthe field of alternative energydemonstrates an atypical regressivedevelopment, during which therewas no evolutionary transition to thenext (environmental) level of stateincentives. That is why the equationfor other countries that reduce greentariffs and/or change them by otherlegal mechanisms is not scientificallysubstantiated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.007 |
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