MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557598154 · doi:10.24908/fg.v13i1.5991

Regional implementation of Multi-level Governance Type I – the European Cohesion Policy

2016· article· en· W2557598154 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Governance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)Multi-level governanceNegotiationCorporate governancePolitical sciencePoliticsPublic administrationConceptual frameworkWork (physics)Regional scienceEconomic systemEconomic geographyGeographyBusinessSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of European integration has been promoting subnational mobilization activities in both federal and centralized states. The regions’ activities in Brussels have been pushing forward research on the subnational level. From the conceptual work on multi-level governance as the continuous negotiation taking place at different levels of governments that are nested at different territorial levels, their presence in Brussels has offered regions the possibility to become actors in different constellations. Regions are increasingly acknowledged as political spaces and as active actors within European policies, such as the case of Saxony-Anhalt. The paper deals with the active mobilization of Saxony-Anhalt within the multi-level governance framework of the EU with regard to the development of the European Cohesion 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.280 · 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