Деякі питання публічного адміністрування планування використання земель в Україні та в деяких провідних країнах світу
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 scientific article is based on the works of blighty scientists, researchers and modern legislation. Current issues of public administration of land use planning are analyzes. The different views of scholars on the definition of public administration are emphasized. The authors consider a relationship with the term «public administration» and the lack of legislation on the lack of distinction between them. The authors of the study analyze the basic principles of land use planning. The implementation of planning at different levels of activity of public administration entities is analyzed and the forms of planning in Ukraine and their types are indicated. We focus on special authorities that implement planning at state and local levels and analyze their main tasks. In addition, the authors of the study focus on identifying the features of diverse land use planning models in foreign countries, in particular, in the United States, the Republic of Poland, Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Based on this analysis, we the common features of the forms of public administration of land use planning in the leading countries of the world are identified. We have identified the most successful and effective model of planning in Ukraine, taking into account all its shortcomings and making additions that are necessary to ensure the successful realization of the authority to implement planning by public entities. The authors clarified the role of public administration of land plans in the field of land relations in Ukraine and in the leading countries 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it