What is the Public Interest in Professional Regulation? Canadian Regulatory Leaders’ Views in a Context of Change
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
Professions are regulated in the public interest, but precisely what the term “public interest” means can vary across time and place. Research exploring changes to professional regulation in the West has begun to identify such shifts: for instance, highlighting the emphasis on consumer satisfaction and public protection over other potential meanings of the public interest. To understand these societal shifts and their implications for professional regulation, this article first reviews neo-Weberian theories of rationalization, and empirical literature. Subsequently, it presents findings from interviews with regulatory leaders across six Canadian provinces to determine if the trends in rationalization identified are reflected in leaders’ accounts of professional regulation in the public interest. Interviews reveal that many leaders define the public interest in ways consistent with technical rationality, including a safety lens and consumer orientation; however, there is also evidence of broader meanings and values. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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