MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6903156325 · doi:10.11575/prism/39591

In the Interest of Disclosure: A Framework for Conflict of Interest in Public Policy

2021· other· en· W6903156325 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen MIND · 2021
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTransparency (behavior)AccountabilityPublic interestPublic policyConflict of interestGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Public sectorPolicy studies

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This capstone provides insight into conflict of interest in public policy, and the growing challenges that exist in the space in terms of adequate and appropriate disclosure. It is becoming increasingly common for those engaged in public policy work to share their findings and opinions with the public through media activities, social media engagement, and publication with academic journals. Yet, the field currently has no clear disclosure framework for public policy academics, researchers, or experts to share their expertise with transparency and accountability. The lack of framework has led to issues with public policy experts sharing or selling their expertise, confidently working with the public, and ensuring that information shared is trustworthy and transparent. Some public policy commentators will provide a disclosure, but without a framework it has proven difficult to understand concepts like what is appropriate to include, and what is the sufficient window for past activities. This has led to a patchwork approach to conflict of interest disclosure, and growing issues within the field in terms of transparency and accountability with professionals and the public. Through a qualitative review of three different sectors: government, private sector, and academia, this capstone outlines a series of recommendations based on identified themes and approaches found in other conflict of interest disclosure policies. At the government level, the Canadian federal government, Alberta provincial government, and Calgary and Edmonton were considered at the municipal level. Within private sector, consideration was given to sectors that normally highly overlap with the work of public policy. These include law, medicine, research and science, and journalism. Within academic, academic publications, academic associations, and academic institutions including the University of Toronto, University of Calgary, and University of British Columbia were examined. For each sector, conflict of interest disclosure policies that were readily accessible online were identified for review. During the review process, highlighting any definitions, approaches to private interests, and an overview of disclosure methodology was included in this report. Through this review four main themes were identified to form the foundation of a framework in public policy. This includes a definitive approach to conflict of interest, emphasizing different types of conflict, outlining the interests that can cause conflicts in professional work, and timely and accessible disclosure policies. Additional recommendations such as ensuring clear understanding of any institutional guidelines that public policy academics and researchers must adhere too is also crucial to ensuring compliance. Also, education, training and informing students and those engaged in broader public policy work about the importance of ensuring transparent engagement with the public is very important. Professional norms can go a long way in creating a public policy community that collectively understands the value of conflict of interest disclosure. With the identified themes and deeper understanding of the current state of conflict of interest across multiple jurisdictions, two definitions are provided at the end of this capstone that capture what conflict of interest is in public policy, and what a comprehensive disclosure statement should include. These definitions attempt to provide an understanding for the sector and lay the groundwork to continue to build conflict of interest disclosure practices within the sector.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,279
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,168
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,965
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,889

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2790,168
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,005
Bibliométrie0,0180,014
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0340,209
Communication savante0,0620,081
Science ouverte0,0140,035
Intégrité de la recherche0,0350,038
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,276
Tête enseignante GPT0,422
Écart entre enseignants0,146 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen MIND→Travaux en français237 207→