An Australian National Compact - Something old, something new?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Australian Labor Party (ALP) formed government under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007 promising to consult with the not-for-profit sector on the development of a national compact. It was the government’s aim to forge a new settlement with the sector after eleven years of Liberal/National Coalition government during which contractual governance rather than relational governance was the norm. The provenance of the National Compact, launched in March 2010, can be traced back to similar framework documents for inter-sectoral cooperation in the United Kingdom (principally, The Compact) and Canada (the Accord). The National Compact) cannot be explained solely in terms of policy diffusion or the predilection of centre-right political parties for policy instruments of this sort. Rather, explanation requires a more nuanced contextual analysis of the political and policy environment within which these frameworks emerged. In this article we compare the range of factors contributing to the development of The Compact (UK), the Accord) (Canada) and the National Compact (Australia). We apply a similar analysis to policy frameworks in selected Australian states. We conclude that compacts arrive on the policy agenda via the opening of policy windows and through the actions of policy entrepreneurs. Policy windows and the attention of policy entrepreneurs might be both contextual and therefore, time-limited. We consider the range of factors that appear to have a bearing on the impact and durability of inter-sectoral policy frameworks in each jurisdiction in order to draw tentative conclusions about the prospects for the Australian National Compact.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".