Bibliographic record
Abstract
A panoptic overview of current governing practices evidences an expansive role of private regulation in a significant range of crucial public policy issues. Whether at the domestic, regional or global levels, such a phenomenon has increasingly become perceived as a conundrum, if not an overall crisis, for modern paradigms of legal and political authority. Building upon the array of case studies that the phenomenon has already elicited, this paper advances four interrelated arguments. First, descriptively, it contends that the administrative state has experienced a large-scale transformation due to the proliferation of a varied, multifaceted and fast evolving range of private regulatory practices. Second, methodologically, after mapping the way these private regulatory practices have been conceptualised in post-national legal theories, it conveys the importance of moving beyond the state of the art by adopting a phenomenological approach to contemporary legal orderings. Third, drawing upon comparative analysis of competition law, it distinguishes two broad models that have emerged to address the private regulation phenomenon: (i) the private ordering model, predominant in the US; and (ii) the private police powers model, predominant in the EU, which, I claim, could be productively understood from a doctrinal perspective as an emergent private administrative law. Finally, at a normative level, I conclude positioning such a private administrative law model as a distinctive conceptual framework to reflect upon the place, role and the very significance of law within a landscape of contemporary political economies characterised by an expanding topography of private regulators.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".