Environmental science and public policy in Executive government: Insights from Australia and Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an exploratory study into the science–policy experiences of former Environment Ministers (senior politicians) and Department Secretaries/Deputy Ministers (senior public servants) to better understand the role of science-based knowledge in the Executive decision-making processes of Westminster-based governments. Our participants identified a number of factors affecting the value of science-based evidence to strategic public policy processes. They described a lack of access to appropriately contextualized knowledge and a lack of accountability to demonstrate how science was considered in Cabinet decision-making. Many participants felt senior academics had an obligation to be more involved in public policy debates, to advocate policy positions based on their research and to ask questions that could assist governments on environmental issues. Concomitant was the desire for fundamental institutional changes, including greater use of deliberative public participation tools in environmental science and policy and more networked approaches to science.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it