<i>Regulation & Governance</i> announces annual “Best Article” prize winners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are delighted to announce that Ruthanne Huising (McGill University) and Susan S. Silbey (MIT) will receive the Regulation & Governance prize for the best article published in Volume 5 (2011) of the journal. Their winning paper is: Governing the Gap: Forging Safe Science through Relational Regulation , Volume 5, Issue 1, pages 14–42. Using data from a long-term ethnographic study, this paper shows what organizational “best practices” actually look like in regulated organizations that conscientiously strive to implement environmental, health, and safety regulations in a sensible manner. Huising and Silbey reconceive the gap between regulations and their enactment as the space where much regulatory action occurs. This allows them to ask what specific practices allow regulatory workers to manage that gap and what conditions are necessary for these practices to develop. Their careful, detailed analysis of the halting, uncertain problem-solving work of regulatory coordinators shows us just how hard it is to do regulation right and reminds us that the challenges of regulation arise not just from regulatee recalcitrance but also from the intractability of many regulatory problems. They argue that apprehending relational interdependencies is a key part of solving regulatory problems. This is original and illuminating article should find its way into courses on regulation and corporate governance. We are enthusiastic about giving it our best article award. We also urge readers to peruse the special issue in which the winning article appears. Edited by Susan Silbey, the issue examines pragmatic and relational regulation in a variety of settings, using the metaphor of the “sociological citizen” to suggest a regulatory stance that looks carefully at existing social ties and reaches beyond existing scripts to find solutions that strengthen and support regulated groups. The selection panel was composed of the editors, Prof. Carol A. Heimer (Northwestern University), Prof. Robert A. Kagan (University of California, Berkeley), and Prof. David Levi-Faur (Hebrew University). The Editors and Wiley-Blackwell congratulate the winners and thank them for their valuable contribution to scholarship and the journal. The Regulation & Governance Prize comes with a US$500 award and a complimentary one-year print and online subscription to the journal. The next prize will be awarded for an article from Volume 6 (2012) and will be announced in early 2013.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.073 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".