The Socio-Economic Analysis of Strategic Planning on the Development of Public-Private Partnership: the Experience of Russian Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the article is the item of what is the interrelation between such management frameworks as strategic planning and public-private partnership (PPP). Development of PPP seems relevant especially for particular regions of the country as such a concept allows the salvation of important socio-economic issues of territory and economizing budget resources at the same time. Aside from that, PPP might serve as a tool for stable region development. However, this requires carrying out a purposeful policy on developing public-private partnerships, which is going to be worked on and reflected in regional strategic plans. Within the framework of this deed based on specific Russian region experience, the research is taking place, how exactly perspectives of development and usage of PPP are reflected in strategy documents, and how this is being reflected on the development level of this economical concept. The basis of the study includes such methods as, compilation analysis of regional regulatory legal acts, score-based document-benchmarking study, and integral estimation of PPP development level in Russian Federation regions. The study results allowed estimation of Russian Federation regions experience, to highlight some issues obstructing PPP development, and to suppose a group of recommendations, and using them practically will allow for more accurate and complete securing perspectives of PPP development in regional strategic plans. Moreover, this in turn, will allow making PPP a more effective tool not for investments attraction only, but also for achieving stable development.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".