Strategic Planning of National Development: International and Ukrainian Experience. Part I. International Experience of Strategic Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the strategic planning of national and sustainable development, focusing on international experiences in the first part and the state of national strategic planning in the second part. It discusses the legislative framework for strategic planning and the development of long-term strategies for national and sustainable development. The first part provides an overview of strategic planning frameworks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the EU, as well as international experiences in formulating national and sustainable development strategies within the EU. This section emphasizes the strategic planning process and the establishment of monitoring indicators for evaluating interventions, strategies, and programs. EU countries adopt a participatory approach to goal-setting, integrate digital technologies into monitoring processes, and define standards for evaluation of strategic documents. Planning processes in the EU are rooted in results-based management principles, particularly the theory of change, and evidence-based decision making. Goal-setting is informed by research on national development specifics, the participatory identification of social needs, and a long-term vision for the country’s future. The targets of national and sustainable development strategies, along with their corresponding indicators, are clearly aligned with the overall goals. These strategies guide other medium-term plans, programs, and budget processes for the medium term. The direction and pace of future transformations in each country largely depend on setting targets, programming, and establishing a system of action plans and measures with defined indicators, as well as on the evaluation of previous development strategies. Most strategies in developed countries incorporate a digital monitoring model. Analyzing the dynamics of indicators set as targets in the strategic documents of developed countries, along with reviewing reports and their public presentation, reveals that open public monitoring of government institutions’ commitments to the national development strategy is a hallmark of democratic society.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".