MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Stabilization of the Regulatory Burden: The "One-In, One-Out" Principle Implementation Challenges

2016· article· en· W4411373773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
О. М. Шестоперов, Т. Л. Рукавишникова

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration Issues · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurden of proofPrecautionary principlePolitical scienceLawBiologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principle “one-in, one-out” means that the regulator should abolish the existing regulation in the amount of the costs imposed by a new regulation on business. This article contains an overview of experience in applying the “one-in, one-out” principle in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. This research provides an analysis of the existing models of its application their features and quantitative results of the application of the principle, with the most interesting part being statistical data on the magnitude of costs, aimed at fulfilling the requirements of legislation which could reduce the overall burden of legislation on business during the application of the ne-in, one-out” principle. B Basing on the study of international experience, an analysis of risks relating to the use of this principle, is carried out. The implementation of the principle «one-for-one" is shown in lawmaking activities in Russia: the regulatory framework governing its use, as well as the results of the first enforcement. An analysis of the practice of application of the principle in Russia is based on statistics provided on regulation.gov.ru. portal. The research results in drawing conclusions about opportunities and consequences of the principle "one-for-one" implementation that can be claimed when applied in Russia. At present, the principle does not embrace all draft regulations that may increase the administrative burden. The formulating of the principle in legislation brings about some ambiguity that creates uncertainty in using it, as well as in methods (limitations on using the standard cost model). The practice of canceling the existing regulation, based on the «one-in, one-out» principle, is rare. However, the application of the principle in certain areas may have a positive impact on the reduction of administrative costs, such as the revision of the sectoral regulatory and legal framework of state control, the formation of a unified register of reporting forms and review of business reporting to public authorities.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.034
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0130.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Administration IssuesSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207