MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Swiss Energy Policy and the Challenge of European Governance

2009· article· en· W1996567951 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

VenueSwiss Political Science Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceFlexibility (engineering)Network governanceInclusion (mineral)European unionElectricityPoliticsMulti-level governanceEnergy policyEnergy marketEconomic systemAdaptation (eye)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceInternational tradeSociologyLawRenewable energyManagementSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Union establishes external relations with third countries in different ways. Network governance is considered as an organisational opening that provides for more cooperative flexibility and inclusion. In this article, I examine to what extent network governance enables Switzerland's inclusion in the European energy sector. I argue that, as the network governance of EU energy policy becomes more institutionalized – from the regulatory forums of Florence and Madrid to the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG) – Switzerland tends to be excluded. I further argue that this lack of political inclusion is partly compensated by patterns of market governance that favor Swiss firms. Neither network nor market governance, however, is a sufficient form of coordination and traditional options such as bilateral agreements (electricity) and autonomous adaptation (gas) seem inevitable.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.314 · 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