Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Corporate rules are often analysed without attending to the strengths and limitations of the body making, monitoring or implementing those rules. However, corporate rule-making and implementation bodies (RMIBs) over which policymakers have the most influence—legislatures, public regulatory agencies, stock exchanges, and private/professional bodies with a degree of self-regulatory autonomy—have an important bearing on the effectiveness of rules. This article advances a framework to understand how RMIBs influence the effectiveness of corporate rules by critically examining five core features of RMIBs: (a) their incentives for making and implementing the rules; (b) the nature and extent of regulatory competition; (c) available and relative resources; (d) rule-making speed and the certainty of their decisions; and (e) their legitimacy in the eyes of the regulated parties and relevant stakeholders. To illustrate the framework concretely, this article conducts case studies exploring how it matters who makes the rules on climate-related risks disclosure and in the UK’s recently enacted Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".