MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1694566178

Administrative Styles and Regulatory Reform: Institutional Arrangements and their Effects on Administrative Behavior

2004· article· en· W1694566178 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational public management review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveInstitutional logicState (computer science)Set (abstract data type)Perspective (graphical)Process (computing)Institutional theoryOrganizational structurePolitical sciencePublic administrationBusinessSociologyEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceLawSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The institutional structure of an organization creates a distinct pattern of constraints and incentives for state and societal actors which define and structure actors. interests and channel their behavior. The interaction of these actors generates a particular administrative logic and process, or culture. However, since institutional structures vary, a neo-institutional perspective suggests that there will be many different kinds of relatively long-lasting patterns of administrative behavior  - each pattern being defined by the particular set of formal and informal institutions, rules, norms, traditions, and values of which it is comprised - and many different factors affecting the construction and deconstruction of each pattern. Following this logic, this article develops a multilevel, nested model of administrative styles and applies it to the observed patterns of regulatory reform in many jurisdictions over the past several decades.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational public management reviewSame topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207