Reconceptualizing Administrative Burden Around Onerous Experiences
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
ABSTRACT Despite ongoing discussions on the need to improve the conceptualization and measurement of administrative burden, several conceptual problems remain. This study offers the first systematic analysis and evaluation of this increasingly central public management concept. Using an ontological-semantic approach, I show that the current conceptualization fails to fully and directly account for individuals’ onerous experiences. I address five interrelated issues, including the overlap of cost categories and the conflation of state actions with onerous experiences. While psychological costs should be retained, I argue for abandoning the other cost categories. Building on previous reconceptualization efforts, I propose a new framework focused on time, money, effort, and psychological costs. Additionally, I explore the structure of the concept and propose specific indicators for each dimension. I then discuss the independence of these dimensions, their capacity to reflect the distributive nature of burdens, and avenues for empirical validation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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