ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN THE SYSTEM OF LOCAL SELFGOVERNMENT: WORLD EXPERIENCE AND UKRAINIAN REALITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical approaches to the definition of the term «public services» are generalized, which in developed countries is considered common and common, while in Ukraine, along with it, the term «administrative services» has been used more often lately. However, despite such universality, this term hides a variety of meanings and conceptual nuances. It is determined that the term «public services» has become global in the last three decades due to the wave of administrative reforms in the spirit of the New Public Management (NPM), which swept around the world and set the tone for modern public administration, both developed and in developing countries. Despite its prevalence and universality, the term «public services» has not yet acquired a single scientific meaning and is very poorly regulated by law, although in the last decade there have been national and regional trends in the world to fill this gap. Moreover, in different regions, these trends are different driving forces, factors and conditions, which determines the diversity of the content of concepts, legal doctrines and emerging institutions. It was found that one of the most successful projects in foreign countries to improve the quality of public services in local governments was the creation of so-called «civilian offices» (multifunctional centers, integrated service centers, customer service centers, etc.), which allow most of the most required administrative procedures. The main global trends in the development of administrative services are highlighted, including their reorientation from the national to the municipal level, unification of administrative services and organization of their provision on a «single window» through special integrated organizational structures created by local governments.
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) | 0.000 | 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".