MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994671025 · doi:10.1177/0021909614535917

Civil Society and Policy Making in Developing Countries: Assessing the Impact of Think Tanks on Policy Outcomes in Ghana

2014· article· en· W1994671025 on OpenAlex
Frank L. K. Ohemeng

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

VenueJournal of Asian and African Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersRothermere American Institute, University of OxfordUniversity of OxfordGenesis Research Institute
KeywordsThink tanksGovernment (linguistics)Public policyCivil societyPolicy makingEconomic growthPolitical scienceDeveloping countryDevelopment economicsBusinessPublic administrationEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Not long ago, the number of think tanks in Ghana began to increase steadily. These organizations have now carved out a niche as repositories of ideas for government to tap when formulating and implementing good policies for development. Unfortunately, while their role in the policy making process is well accepted, whether they actually have a substantial impact on policy outcomes is as yet undetermined. In this paper, we will examine the impact of think tanks on policy outcomes in Ghana by looking at two major policy areas where policies have been initiated either by these institutions or by government itself.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.371 · 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