MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110002341 · doi:10.1080/01441647.2012.706331

Actors and Their Representations in Shipping Policy: Developing the European Maritime Safety Agency

2012· article· en· W2110002341 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Dupré, Emmanuel Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)PoliticsWork (physics)Process (computing)Perspective (graphical)Socioeconomic statusPublic administrationPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessRegional scienceSociologyEngineeringLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Through a chronological reconstruction, the study looks at the events that lead to the official birth of the Agency in 2003 and how it developed to its current state. The conceptual framework draws from cognitive policy analysis, a French political science perspective related to new institutionalisms. This approach emphasizes the role of the actors' own representations of their sector and the ways they fit within the socioeconomic system as a whole. This highlights the evolution of the stakeholders' positions and influence throughout the development process. Findings suggest that although considerable discrepancies between European representatives and those of the shipping industry were present in the context leading to EMSA's creation, the Agency has now established a working consensus confirming a greater implication of European authorities in the regulation of international shipping. The work also suggests that a greater attention to plays of power among stakeholders and how they translate in their representations could be pertinent to strengthen research in shipping policy.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransport ReviewsSame topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207