Les critères de répartition des normes entre la loi et le règlement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various groups and institutions are concerned about the proliferation of regulations. There is fear of an overflow into the regulatory field of standards that belong to the legislative domain. It therefore seems appropriate to draw up criteria for assigning standards to the respective areas of statutes and regulations. The logic for apportioning standards might be based on the principle that the placing of a standard in the hierarchy of unilateral normative instruments is directly related to the scope of its object and inversely related to its degree of intervention in the activity subjected to it. Before deciding to put a standard into a statute or to provide that it be enacted later under regulation-making authority, it is advisable to assess its degree of generality in relation to the concepts that surround it in the legislative draft, and also to measure its degree of materiality, i.e. the extent to which it embodies Government intervention in the activity that it is proposed to regulate. From a practical standpoint, however, the impact of the political environment on legislative drafting must not be ignored. Allowing for the influence of policy and politics on the design of the statute-regulations complex, three contiguous but distinct normative areas may be identified: standards that must belong to the domain of statutes ; standards that may be apportioned to either the domain of statutes or that of regulations ; and standards that would normally belong to the domain of regulations. The model suggested is not absolute and is liable to be modified by space and time considerations ; however, reference to it might help to rationalize the delegation of regulation-making authority.
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 | 0.045 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".