Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bottom up self-enforcing strategy based on outcomes to replace the current top down approach based on compliance to practices is recommended to both the Australian Government and the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Introduction of the self-enforcing strategy is proposed on a selective basis for those corporations that provide superior protection for investors and other stakeholder than current practices. Corporations who changed their constitutions to provide greater power to their stakeholders to protect themselves and act as co-regulators would be exempted from complying with the relevant laws and regulations made redundant. In this way: (i) the cost of government regulation and compliance by companies could be reduced while superior protect provided and (ii) competition could be created between corporations to identify the most effective practices to achieve superior outcomes for investors, stakeholders, themselves and the public. The ASX submission is included in this 2007 submission to the Government as 'Attachment II'. The ASX invited comments in 2006 on their review of their 'Principles of Good Corporate Governance Practice and Best Practice Recommendations' introduced in March 2003. The Australian Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer invited the public in 2006 to comment on a report released by the government on Streamlining Prudential Regulation: Response to 'Rethinking Regulation'. 'Attachment I' is an article with the working title 'Fiduciary duty of Trustees to introduce Self-regulation' published with the title 'Buried Alive' in Superfunds, pp. 35-37, April 2007, The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".