Conceptualising Multilevel Regulation in the EU: A Legal Translation of Multilevel Governance?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How should we conceive of regulation in the European context? This paper attempts to answer this by developing multilevel regulation as a theoretical concept. The basic aim of the paper is to explore the difference and convergence between regulation and governance and develop multilevel governance and multilevel regulation as two individual heuristic concepts. We suggest that it is useful to frame multilevel governance in the context of regulatory spaces. As an example, we undertake an exploratory investigation of multilevelness of the regulatory space of marketing authorisation of medical devices. This allows us to help focus on certain aspects of the regulatory process by acknowledging that it is no longer located in the hand of a single (governmental) actor and highlighting the necessity of considering interventions beyond the state in addressing regulatory effectiveness problems that may crop up in this context. Ultimately, we assess whether multilevel regulation is a legal translation of the concept of multilevel governance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it