Правові основи кластерної самоорганізації і саморегулювання енергопростору
Bibliographic record
Abstract
У юридичній науці залишається невизначеність з головних питань щодо теоретичних засад та законодавчого забезпечення створення і діяльності кластерів в економіці України та на енергопросторі. Метою дослідження є визначення основних напрямів розвитку теоретичних засад та законодавства щодо кластерної самоорганізації і саморегулювання енергопростору. Застосовано як основні методи аналітико-синтетичний, порівняльно-правовий, історичний, метод балансу інтересів. Проаналізовано питання правових основ кластерної самоорганізації і саморегулювання енергопростору, сформульовано основні положення та пропозиції щодо них. Обґрунтовано, що адекватною економічній теорії кластера як відкритої динамічної системи економічних відносин є правова інституційна теорія. Аргументовано, що Україні в галузі енергетики доцільно брати за основу досвід скандинавських країн щодо створення національного енергетичного кластера, поклавши це в основу Національної програми кластеризації. There is still uncertainty in legal science on the main issues regarding theoretical principles and legislative provision of the creation and operation of clusters in the economy of Ukraine and in the energetic area. The objective of the research is definition of the main directions of the development of theoretical principles and legislation regarding cluster self-organization and self-control of energetic area. Analytical and synthetic, comparative and legal, historical methods, method of the balance of interests have been applied as the main methods. The issue of legal basis of cluster self-organization and self-control of energetic area has been analyzed; the basic provisions and propositions concerning them have been formulated. It has been substantiated that the cluster becomes the main subject of economic relations in the current conditions of the post-industrial information and network economy, and, in turn, the main subject of commercial (economic) law of the modern period. The legal institutional theory is the adequate economic theory of the cluster as a kind of system of economic relations. It has been argued that the cluster from institutional legal point of view has the public legal nature – it is a complex legal institution, which is an open system of legal institutions, where the legal institution is a set of economic and legal relations between the cluster participants. The openness of the system of cluster relations leads to their public character. According to the example of the formation and functioning of cluster relations, the author has argued that at the current stage economic legal personality, which has private and public character, grows out into private, public and moral legal personality. It has been argued that it is expedient to use the experience of Scandinavian countries in the energy sector of Ukraine in regard to the creation of the national energetic cluster as the basis of the National Program of Clustering. It has been determined that content of legislation on clusters, including the energetic field, is advisable to formulate, taking into account that cluster relations have a specific organizational and legal character and can function both with the rights, and without the rights of a legal entity, both with the use of other organizational and legal forms of business associations, and without them. The author has offered to create national energetic cluster as a center of economic activity, which carries out state policy of clustering in the energy sector of the economy on the basis of social responsibility and public functions delegated by the state.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.015 |
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".