Rebuilding Policy Capacity in the Era of the Fiscal Dividend: A Report from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After two decades of focusing on deficit reduction and restructuring of operations, governments in many areas of the world are once again contemplating new policies and expenditures. In Canada, where budgetary surpluses have recently replaced deficits, the federal government has been asking whether it still has the capacity to make informed choices about new programs. This article examines Canada’s recent efforts in rebuilding its policy capacity. It asks, first, to what extent and in what way was policy capacity originally lost. Second, it appraises the adequacy of new policy “networks,” consisting of think tanks, consultants and government officials, as “virtual replacements” for former government‐controlled advisory bodies, royal commissions, and in‐house policy units. Finally, it notes the relative absence of parliamentarians, and even the political executive, from capacity‐rebuilding activities, a deficiency that in the long run may undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of such efforts.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".