The durability of European Regional Development Fund partnership and governance structures: a case study of the Scottish Highlands and Islands
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
This paper explores the ways in which European Union Regional Policy, particularly the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), operates in a multi-level governance framework in which stakeholders at sub-national, national and European levels work together in partnership to deliver the European funding. Focusing upon the case of the Highlands and Islands region of Scotland, the paper analyses the ways in which partnership and governance structures have evolved over successive ERDF programming periods between 2000–2006 and 2007–2013. In particular, the paper illustrates the ways in which the Highlands and Islands’ ERDF governance structures were built upon a ‘broad’ and ‘deep’ level of partnership amongst key stakeholders, especially in the 2000–2006 programme. For various reasons, including a significant reduction in its ERDF funding allocation, the level of partnership working was streamlined during the 2007–2013 programme. Importantly, however, the durability of the governance structures has been maintained.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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