МІЖНАРОДНІ ПРАКТИКИ ВЗАЄМОДІЇ ОРГАНІВ ПУБЛІЧНОЇ ВЛАДИ У СИСТЕМІ НАЦІОНАЛЬНОЇ БЕЗПЕКИ: КОМПАРАТИВНИЙ АНАЛІЗ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgent need to improve national strategies for ensuring the resilience and adaptability of Ukraine's national security system in the conditions of full-scale Russian aggression and growing global challenges necessitates scientific research into effective foreign experience for its further implementation into domestic practice. In view of the above, the purpose of this article is to carry out a comparative analysis of international practices of interaction between public authorities in the national security system by systematizing the latter into established models, providing a detailed analysis of them, and determining prospects for their implementation in Ukraine. The author has examined three main models of interaction: centralized, decentralized, and mixed, each of which is considered from the perspective of its typological characteristics, functional advantages and disadvantages, as well as its impact on the efficiency of the national security system's functioning. In particular, it has been established that the centralized model is characterized by a rigid hierarchical structure and the dominance of a single power center. The decentralized model is based on the dispersal of powers and responsibilities among a plurality of bodies, which promotes the autonomy of subjects and their broad horizontal interaction. The mixed model synthesizes elements of the centralized and decentralized models, combining strategic coordination with operational flexibility. It is substantiated that in the conditions of hybrid warfare, it is the adaptability of the mixed model that allows for the most effective response to unpredictable threats while maintaining the strategic unity of public administration. Drawing on Canadian experience, emphasis is placed on the expediency of creating a Center of Excellence as a platform for knowledge exchange, professional development, and the joint search by specialized bodies for optimal solutions to counter modern complex threats to the national interests of Ukraine. The article also analyzes the risks of interagency fragmentation and proposes regulatory mechanisms for their minimization based on NATO standards. Additionally, the role of modern digital tools and secure communication channels is highlighted as the technical foundation for operational interaction between different links of the security and defense sector. The author also focuses on the need to strengthen adherence to the principle of publicity during the interaction of public authorities in the national security system by ensuring honest communication with society regarding successes and challenges, which is a guarantee of internal resilience and trust in wartime conditions. It is argued that government openness is a critical tool in the fight against disinformation and manipulations used by the enemy to destabilize the socio-political situation. It is concluded that the modernization of the interaction system is a necessary condition not only for the current resilience of the state but also for the successful post-war reconstruction and Euro-Atlantic integration of 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".