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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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