MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994133412 · doi:10.1177/0895904807310039

Uncovering Information's Role in the State Higher Education Policy-Making Process

2007· article· en· W1994133412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsLethbridge College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Process (computing)Public administrationHigher educationPolicy analysisPolitical sciencePublic relationsInformation policyEducation policyPolicy makingComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used testimony, documents, and interviews to examine the use of information in higher education policy making. The article discusses the coalition alignment regarding the state's tuition assistance program and the concomitant information sources on which each coalition drew in the budget process. The results show that there were differences in information sources between and within coalitions, and information was used for different purposes. The article demonstrates the potential utility of Paul A. Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework and elicits information-related suggestions for its future applicability to higher education policy analysis.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.374 · 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