Strategic Development of Park and Recreation Complexes in the System of Natural Asset Management of Territorial Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of substantiating the factors of strategic development of park and recreation complexes in the asset management system of territorial communities, in particular, highlights the strategic provisions of natural asset management within the studied complexes using the best world practices, as well as reveals the features of the strategic development integration of these complexes in the system of natural asset management at the level of territorial communities. The improved strategic provisions are based on the conceptual foundations of resilient ecological and economic development and best practices, primarily the Canadian MNAI. The strategic development toolkit is aimed at the following: expanding reporting and increasing its transparency, developing detailed natural asset management registers, integrating these assets into the local taxation system, improving cost management and investment profitability within the natural asset life cycle, expanding the integrated approach in relevant project activities. The provisions of the step-by-step integration of the strategic development of park and recreation complexes in the natural asset management system at the level of territorial communities are outlined. The recommendations are aimed at establishing a management structure and making decisions regarding the natural asset management, ensuring their integration into the infrastructure asset management, and developing detailed plans for the natural asset management within park and recreation complexes. The recommendations are intended to support local government bodies in matters of integrating the processes of natural asset management of park and recreation and other nature complexes into the general policy of regeneration and development of ecological and economic activity of territorial communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".