Regulacja oparta na ryzyku jako refleksyjna strategia regulacyjna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an attempt to outline the concept of risk-based regulation and to identify issues that require further study and preliminary examination on how this kind of regulatory strategy can be translated into business practice. This last issue could tentatively be reduced to reflecting on whether regulators and undertakings operating in the continental regulatory model (based primarily on a command-and-control model) are ready-to-implement concepts derived from and used in English-speaking countries, mainly Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. The article identifies the organisational, political, infrastructural and volitional conditions that need to be met in order to allow the implementation of the risk-based-regulation model, one of three reflexive strategies referred to in the literature. Reflexive regulatory systems have proven to be successful in countries where regulators enjoy considerable autonomy and independence and where staff is composed of professionals who do not adhere to the “official routine.” On the other hand, the reflexive character of the regulatory strategy is based on risk management, and not on compliance, which is characteristic of the continental model.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".