MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097387003

TYPES OF REGULATORY DOCUMENTS

2006· article· en· W7097387003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatory authorityConsistency (knowledge bases)LegislationNoticeRulemakingRegulatory reformRegulatory stateCommissionProcess (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory documents support the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulatory framework. By expanding on expectations set out in general terms in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and associated regulations, regulatory documents provide one of the core management tools upon which the CNSC relies to fulfill its legislated obligations. The regulatory documents most commonly published by the CNSC are regulatory policies, regulatory standards, and regulatory guides. At the highest level, regulatory policies provide the direction for regulatory standards and guides, which serve as the policy “instruments. ” A fourth type of regulatory document, the regulatory notice, is issued when warranted. Because the information in a regulatory notice must be conveyed with relative urgency, the development process is faster than that applied to the other documents. Regulatory Policy (P): The regulatory policy describes the philosophy, principles or fundamental factors on which the regulatory activities associated with a particular topic or area of concern are based. It describes why a regulatory activity is warranted, and therefore promotes consistency in the interpretation of regulatory requirements. Regulatory Standard (S): The regulatory standard clarifies CNSC expectations of what the

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207