MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deliberation in public governance: a comparative legal analysis of practices in foreign states and Ukraine

2025· article· en· W4412386799 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Comparative Jurisprudence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Arbitration and Investment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationCorporate governancePolitical sciencePublic administrationLawPoliticsManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines deliberative governance in the public sector through a comparative legal analysis of practices in foreign countries and Ukraine. It reveals the conceptual foundations of deliberative governance as a tool for enhancing the democratic legitimacy of public authority by ensuring transparency, citizen participation, and the substantiation of public decisions. The experience of the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Canada, the European Union, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom regarding the institutionalization of deliberative procedures in public administration is analyzed. The main models of deliberation implementation are identified: mandatory public consultations, public debates, participation in rule-making, and Citizens’ Assemblies. Common features of foreign practices are outlined, including the recognition of deliberation as a condition for the legitimacy of public decisions and the need for clear procedural regulation. The state of normative consolidation of deliberative mechanisms in Ukraine is analyzed, based on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine concerning popular sovereignty, human dignity, the rule of law, citizen participation, and the openness of government activities. The fragmentation of existing deliberative practices in Ukrainian public governance is identified, and the necessity of improving the normative regulation of participationprocedures, ensuring institutional guarantees of good-faith communication, and expanding opportunities for judicial control over the implementation of procedural fairness principles is emphasized. Attention is drawn to universal challenges in the institutionalization of deliberative governance, such as deliberative overload, pseudo-deliberation, non-inclusivity of communication, lack of procedural sincerity, and conflicts with the principle of efficiency. It is argued that overcoming these risks requires the development of clear procedural standards, the definition of areas where deliberation is mandatory, and the creation of conditions for real citizen participation in decision-making processes. It is emphasized that the implementation of deliberative governance should become one of the key directions for the development of democratic constitutionalism and the improvement of public administration in Ukraine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it