Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is stated that in foreign countries, Civic Control is considered in the light of interaction and mutual influence of the public and its institutions to state power and its officials, the positivity of such cooperation, directions of public activity to the state mechanism of power. It is noted that in different countries of the world to subjects of public control include individuals and public organizations. However, they may also be Public Councils and Supervisory Board of Labor Teams, Public Planning Planning Communities, Public Budget Public Councils, Commodities in the Election of Police Commissioners and Police and Crime Commission. The subjects of public control may be the majority of participants in social relations, which are not endowed with state-owned powers. Forms of public control over state bodies and activities of officials are revealed. Defined as the main of them directly public control, public monitoring, public hearings, public councils, public examination, Ombudsman Institute, Public Verification, Public Investigation, Journalist Investigation, Citizens of Citizens to State Authorities and Local Self-Government, Hearing of Reports. Such a conclusion is based on the relevant US, Canada, France, Spain, Belgium. Innovative forms of public control include: registration of errors of officials, their intentional and random violations of the valid rules and consequences of this, encouraging positive actions of officials and officials, administrative appeal of the actions and acts of local self-government bodies, the Civil Defender Service. It is indicated on such a relatively new form of control as civilian control over internal and external safety. It is widely used in controlling the armed forces. It is noted that public control can be both external and internal. Their definitions are given. Conclusions are made on the need to intermitect effective foreign practices for Ukraine.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".