""There's nothing 'alternative' about legislation": an enquiry into the influence of regulatory culture and legal consciousness on regulators' responses to ADR legislation"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legislation regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can legitimize its use as an alternative to a more formal, law- or court-centred dispute resolution process. However, recent studies warn that prescribing and concretizing this alternative process in legislation may paradoxically undermine, limit or prevent its use. The combination of robust theoretical and empirical research and investigation described in this dissertation seeks to advance the debate about ADR legislation - whether and what to legislate and why. Current legal theories of regulatory culture, legal consciousness and administrative discretion are presented and analyzed. These, in turn, inform the design of a case study that seeks to confirm or challenge the theory, based on in-depth, issue-focused, phenomenological interviews with key informants in the Ontario health professions self-regulatory field regarding recent ADR legislation governing their complaints resolution process. The case study data reveal a variety of individual and collective perceptions of the power of legislation, legality, non-law and alternatives-to-law, as reflected in comments about the requirements and expectations of the ADR legislation in a politically dynamic and evolving professional self-regulatory context. The empirical evidence both supports and challenges the ADR regulatory theory and demonstrates how legitimate administrative discretionary power to interpret and adapt the law permits regulatory practices to align with, contest, resist or escape the power of law, thus accomplishing or frustrating the increased efficiency, transparency, accountability, and consistency the ADR law was intended to achieve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".