The Role of Accountability in the Belgian Education System: From Control Regulation to Autonomous Regulation
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
Since 2017, new modes of regulation have been implemented in French-speaking Belgium and have resulted in responsibilization and accountability policies. This article aims to define the characteristics of control regulation, which corresponds to explicit and official rules implemented by the central government. Based on a textual analysis (NVivo® software) of legal texts published between 2017 and 2019, it aims to understand this regulation. This article consists, firstly, of an analysis of the way in which these texts define concepts reflecting the reform of governance in French- speaking Belgium (accountability, autonomy, etc.). Secondly, the “consistency” between this analysis and the literature is examined. This analysis is enriched by a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with stakeholders in the system (N = 5) regarding the way they mobilize these concepts. The aim is to approach autonomous regulation, corresponding to the rules produced within the organization by the individuals who make it up and their interpretation, so that it corresponds to their “reality in the field.” Based on these levels of analysis, this article intends to identify the extent to which these stakeholders take up the meaning of these concepts from the corpus and/or the literature in their discourse, but also how they alter, deviate from, or interpret it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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