Incoherence in Regime Complexes: A Sentiment Analysis of EU‐IMF Surveillance
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
Abstract The proliferation of international institutions means that states can be subject to multiple, overlapping and potentially incoherent international obligations. The regime complexity literature draws attention to this problem but says little about its character and causes. This article investigates whether and why two key components of the international economic surveillance regime – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU) – impose conflicting obligations on the same states. Based on a comparative sentiment analysis of more than 400 surveillance documents and using differences in tone as a proxy for incoherence, our results show that the IMF was more pessimistic about member states' economic policies before the global financial crisis but less so thereafter. Our results suggest that differences in discretionary authority rather than the distribution of power drove such incoherence, with the EU's fiscal rules encouraging less pessimism before the global financial crisis and more pessimism thereafter.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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