Environmental and Legal Framework for Implementing the concept of Sustainable Development in the policy of the Eu and Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the state of integrating environmental legal provisions into sustainable development strategies and identify common and distinctive features in the policies applied in Ukraine and the EU. The focus was on analysing the environmental legal frameworks that influence the implementation of the concept of sustainable development in both regions. To this end, a comparative analysis of the EU and Ukraine's environmental legal standards was conducted, and a series of strategic documents were reviewed. The study employed the methods of documentary analysis, comparative study, and evaluation of implemented policies. It was found that the approaches to sustainable development in the EU and Ukraine have shared features, especially in the integration of environmental standards into national regulations. However, the level of implementation of these standards in the EU is much greater than in Ukraine, which is conditioned by the existence of developed monitoring and control systems. Statistics show a gradual improvement in environmental performance in Ukraine due to the implementation of European standards. The findings of the study confirmed the effectiveness of the integration of environmental standards and legal norms into sustainable development policy, which positively affects the environment in both regions. However, marked differences in policy implementation suggest the need to strengthen cooperation between the EU and Ukraine to achieve common sustainable development goals. Further progress can be achieved through the exchange of practices and the expansion of joint projects.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".