RETRACTED: Redefining the Role of Structures to Change Sectoral Resources Governance Towards Sustainable and Inclusive Management
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a new perspective on public management for sectoral governance. It explains how the role of structures has evolved and redefined, and how this evolution has created new ways of public action. The research method used is developmental content analysis with a focus on qualitative study. This process involves transcribing qualitative data, developing an analytical framework, coding the collected information and analyzing it. The framework ensures consistent analysis of the evolution and redefinition of structures related to sectorial management. The analysis reveals the diversification of practices and the implementation of new modes of public management. In addition to more decentralized management, the involvement of regional county municipalities allows the implementation of management-oriented projects. The analysis demonstrates that reconciling the demands of sectorial management with the socioeconomic reality of the regions is not always easy and that there are still many obstacles in the path of establishing and maintaining innovative sectorial management practices. This article identifies the obstacles to sectoral management, including a cumbersome regulatory framework, low levels of government support for the regional county municipalities, a lack of human and material resources, and a low level of public interest. It also provides references for the evolution of sectorial management in other regions of the world.
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 | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".