Confronting trade‐offs and interactive effects in the choice of policy focus: Specialized versus comprehensive private 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 In setting standards for responsible business practices, certification programs create issue boundaries delineated by the focus of their standards. These issue boundaries may impede action on certain causes of problems (i.e. problem interactive effects) or lead to policy actions that affect other governance initiatives (i.e. policy interactive effects). When these interactions are extensive, programs confront trade‐offs: develop as a comprehensive program (i.e. have a broad policy focus) and take on higher internal administrative costs, or develop as a specialized program (i.e. have a narrow policy focus) and undertake to develop mechanisms to facilitate across‐program coordination. This paper explores these trade‐offs. It examines the origins of the different policy foci of coffee, forest, and fisheries certification programs, and identifies five strategies that programs are currently using to manage policy and/or problem interactive effects. Then, informed by research in public administration and international relations, it details additional approaches for improving issue‐boundary management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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