MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037304724 · doi:10.4337/9781789902952

The Legitimacy of Standardisation as a Regulatory Technique

2020· book· en· W3037304724 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsMontreal Council on Foreign Relations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The book examines the field of European and global standardisation, showing how standards give rise to a multitude of different legal questions. It explores diverse topics in regulation such as food safety, accounting, telecommunications and medical devices. Each chapter offers in-depth analysis of a number of key policy areas. These multi-disciplinary contributions go beyond the field of law, and provide cross-disciplinary comparisons.<br/>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.070
Scholarly communication0.0180.017
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207