Policy Entrepreneurs and the Reorientation of National Security Policy under the G. W. Bush Administration (2001‐04)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are we to explain U.S. foreign policy—particularly policy making on national security—during the transformative years of the G. W. Bush administration? Who were the actors and what were the factors that produced what were some of the most controversial policies? This article argues that security choices and decisions have been the results of the work and methods of “policy entrepreneurs.” It looks first at theoretical approaches to entrepreneurs and their influence over the formulation of national security policy, and secondly at who those entrepreneurs were and how they achieved their goal of transforming U.S. security policy. Two decisions are discussed: the invasion of Iraq and the legal redefinition of torture by the G. W. Bush administration. Related Articles Dolan , Chris J. 2008 . “.” Politics & Policy 36 (): 542 ‐ 585 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00121.x/abstract Haar , Roberta . 2010 . “.” Politics & Policy 38 (): 965 ‐ 990 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00265.x/abstract Clark , John F. 1995 . “.” Southeastern Political Review 23 (): 559 ‐ 579 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.1995.tb00076.x/abstract Related Media Films and Documentaries Brolin , Josh . 2009 . Lionsgate . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/ Kirk , Michael . 2006 . “.” Frontline Documentary . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/ Kirk , Michael . 2005 . “.” Frontline Documentary. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/ Jones , Sherry . 2008 . “.” Washington Media Associates . http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/info/
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".