Public procurement e sostenibilita. Convergenze trasversali dei sistemi giuridici contemporanei
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public procurement plays a key role within the national economy as a strategic lever to achieve broader policy objectives such as promoting sustainability and social inclusion endorsed by the Sustainable Development Goals. Traditionally, to safeguard the public interest, the procuring authorities have been using the “lowest price” criterion in awarding public contracts, subordinating social and environmental issues to the economic performance, but in recent decades, such criterion runs counter to the development of the “triple bottom line” approach and States commitments to promote an equitable and sustainable economic growth. Over the last decades, States’ public procurement policies accepted the idea that achieving value for money doesn’t necessarily mean buying the cheapest option available (moving from the “lowest price” to the “best value for money” criterion) and introduced “preferred procurement” policies such as the “green”, “social” and “sustainable” procurement. On the basis of recent studies, it is possible to outline the existence of a general convergence between legal systems belonging to different legal traditions, in the introduction of sustainable procurement strategies. An example of this convergence can be drawn from the analysis of the public procurement legal framework provided by some countries belonging to the Western Legal Tradition (in particular the European Union, Italy, United Kingdom, Canada; the United States and Australia), as well as to the East Asia (China and Japan) and India legal systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".