Research on Multi-Departmental Coordination Mechanism Based on Randomized Algorithm in Government Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giving full play to the vitality and autonomy of inter-governmental departments can improve the national governance system and enhance the modernized governance capacity.This paper conducts a relevant research on the coordination mechanism between multiple government departments.According to the network analysis method, the relationships of departments in different service items and fields are studied, and the causes of the problems of power distribution and coordination mechanism in the network of departmental relationships are explained, and the analysis of the influence mechanism of departmental coordination is completed by using the random forest algorithm.The analysis results show that the power of government departments in the fields of housing security, social insurance, labor, employment and entrepreneurship, public education, and health care is more concentrated, and the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security have an active position in the coordination process.Cultural cognitive bias, imbalance of power and responsibility, lack of coordination system guarantee and insufficient support of coordination environment are the causes of problems in the coordination mechanism.In addition, ambiguous coordination responsibilities, imperfect institutionalized coordination and lack of supervision system are important factors affecting the multisectoral coordination mechanism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".