STATE GOVERNANCE OF SPACE ACTIVITIES: THE GLOBAL EXPERIENCE FOR UKRAINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the organization of state governance of space activities in Ukraine and in the world. The authors emphasize that proper organization of governance implies the existence of structures capable of performing relevant tasks that meet the socio-economic, environmental and cultural needs of the state, as well as the requirements for ensuring its security and defense. The effectiveness of public administration depends on a clear division of functions and powers between management structures, as well as compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and legal certainty which prevent duplication of powers and optimizes the use of resources. The article examines various approaches to the organization of space management in the world’s leading space powers, such as the United States, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Turkey, China, Japan, India, South Korea, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, Nigeria, Australia, and New Zealand. It is noted that single-tier management systems, where there is a single space agency directly subordinated to the highest executive body, operate in states where space activities are a priority for sustainable development. In most countries, however, space agencies are integrated into the system of ministries responsible for broader development areas. Analyzing the system of space activity management in Ukraine, the authors note that it has undergone numerous trans- formations over the past 30 years, but is not effective today. This is largely due to the imperfect legal regulation of the relevant relations, the presence of a large number of regulatory inconsistencies and contradictions. The authors propose ways to improve the structural and functional support of this system, taking into account both our own historical experience, domestic needs, opportunities and challenges, and maximizing the use of positive foreign experience.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".