The procedure for holding public hearings in international practice
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.
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 | 0.141 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".