MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131220949 · doi:10.1111/rego.12030

Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis

2013· article· en· W2131220949 on OpenAlexaff
Burkard Eberlein, Kenneth W. Abbott, Julia Black, Errol Meidinger, Stepan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueRegulation & Governance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationCorporate governanceNormativePolitical scienceProcess (computing)State (computer science)Key (lock)Positive economicsManagement scienceBusinessEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This special issue demonstrates the importance ofinteractionsin transnational business governance. The number of schemes applying non‐state authority to govern business conduct across borders has vastly expanded in numerous issue areas. As these initiatives proliferate, they increasingly interact with one another and with state‐based regimes. The key challenge is to understand the implications of these interactions for regulatory capacity and performance, and ultimately for social and environmental impact. In this introduction, we propose an analytical framework for the study of transnational business governance interactions. The framework disaggregates the regulatory process to identify potential points of interaction, and suggests analytical questions that probe the key features of interactions at each point.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations89
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegulation & GovernanceSame topicRegulation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207