Regulation and time: temporal patterns in regulatory development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the complex decision-making that goes into policy choices for regulatory regimes, it would seem intuitive that such regimes might develop under distinct national styles. By revisiting several historical models of regulatory development, including Bernstein's classic life-cycle model, and then by analyzing six case studies from the US and UK, for example, we explore the possibility that regulatory regimes vary more prominently along the temporal dimension rather than along spatial ones. We conclude that regulatory regimes have similar developmental patterns, although the time spent at each stage in the process can vary significantly according to unique domestic factors. Points for practitioners Existing theories of regulation would suggest that regulatory activity should either follow identical development trajectories in different countries or it should be entirely idiosyncratic in every jurisdiction in which it is used. Clearly neither is true, as some regulatory regimes display similar qualities and development patterns, while others appear to be unique. A comparison of regulatory activities in the US and UK reveals that regulatory regimes in these countries develop through similar stages along similar pathways, but that the rate of development and the transition through the stages can occur at different speeds. This development is mainly stimulated by periodic crises that force changes in regulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it