The procedure for holding public hearings in international practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problems of public hearings, their organization and conduct are debatable around the world. This institution of self-government is being improved in accordance with the expansion of citizens' rights in the management of urban processes, the introduction of information technologies in the implementation process. In Russia, the Federal Law №212 dated July 21, 2017 introduced changes to the Urban Development Code of the Russian Federation to improve the effectiveness of this institution in the conditions of informatization and digitalization. The authors of this article conducted a comparative analysis of the forms and procedures of organization, issues discussed in world practice, and concluded that in European countries, the USA, Canada the range of issues discussed at public hearings is wider, information technologies are used more widely, and decisions are mandatory for making. In Russia, the results of public hearings have no legal status. A study of world practices is required to use the positive experience of other countries in ensuring the effectiveness of this institution.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it