MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Formation of the State Regional Policy: The Experience of the G7 Countries

2021· article· en· W4205335662 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

VenueBusiness Inform · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Issues in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationUkrainianRegional policyTransparency (behavior)Strengths and weaknessesDocumentationState (computer science)BusinessAdaptation (eye)Political scienceEconomic policyPublic administrationRegional scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibilities of adaptation of the experience of the G7 countries in the conditions of Ukraine regarding the regulatory and legal support for the formation and implementation of the State regional policy are determined. Methods of analysis and synthesis of information were used, which allowed to establish advantages and «weaknesses» in the legislation of both Ukraine and the G7 countries to ensure the development of the regional economy, also a comparison method based on which the possibility of adaptation of foreign experience in the formation and implementation of the State regional policy was determined. The main directions of implementation of the State regional policy were established through a detailed study of the existing regulatory and legal documents of Ukraine. Advantages and «weaknesses» in the legislation of Ukraine on regulation of regional development are identified. It is defined that the «weaknesses» of Ukrainian legislation in the direction of regulation of the State regional policy are the following: development and implementation of generalized programs for the development of regions without taking into account the level of development of territorial units; weak stimulation of innovations; lack of transparency of the activities of the State administration bodies and control over documentation as to local budgets; lack of provisions to increase the level of development of depressed regions. The possibility of using the experience of the G7 countries to develop recommendations for improving the State regional policy are substantiated. It is determined that the United Kingdom, France and Italy do not have special legislation on regional policy, but it is effective in the United States, Canada, Japan and Germany. The experience of using instruments for the implementation of the State regional policy by the G7 countries in the absence of special legislation was studied. The normative and legal documents of the State regional policy of the G7 countries, which have special legislation on the development of regions, were monitored. A comparative analysis of Ukrainian and foreign experience on implementation of regional development policy was carried out. Recommendations on accelerating the processes of stimulating the development of regions by activating regional policy towards supporting depressed regions are proposed as follows: support for small and medium-sized businesses; introduction of smart specialization with simultaneous development of diversified forms of knowledge economy; introduction of instruments of innovative and digital economy in all spheres of activity of economic entities; inclusion of priorities of small towns and villages into the regional development plans.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.201 · 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