COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE CONDITIONS FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF LOCAL AUTONOMY IN THE CASE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS IN THE FRENCH COMMUNE OF MÉRIGNAC, THE CANADIAN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC AND THE ROMANIAN COMMUNE OF TUDORA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research aims at the comparative analysis of the conditions that support the manifestation of the principle of autonomy in public administration in the administrative-territorial units, with particularization at the commune of Mérignac in France, Quebec province in Canada and Tudora commune in Romania. Through the approach, we found that, in support of local autonomy, the French territorial communities are communes, departments, regions, communities with special status, overseas communities; the Canadian territory is divided into provinces and territories, the province of Quebec being divided by municipalities, cities, parishes, villages, cantons, united cantons; the Romanian national community is divided into local communities formed into counties, municipalities, cities and communes. At the level of the three administrative-territorial units analyzed, human, material and financial public resources were identified, which together provide support for the applicability of the principle of autonomy. In addition, the consistency of local autonomy is also conferred by the recognition of the full competence of the local public administration authorities to manage the affairs of the administrative-territorial units. The fact that the acts of the local public administration authorities in the three territorial divisions are subject to control does not express a restriction on the principle of autonomy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".