MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035529296 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2012.749099

Bureaucratic Control and Policy Change: A Comparative Venue Shopping Approach to Skilled Immigration Policies in Australia and Canada

2013· article· en· W2035529296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian National UniversityBritish AcademyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceCommonwealth Fund
KeywordsBureaucracyImmigrationImmigration policyControl (management)Government (linguistics)Human capitalCapital (architecture)Process (computing)Public administrationBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthManagementLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governments increasingly seek to implement skilled migration programmes. Yet, the policies that ultimately result differ in important ways, particularly with regard to the human capital assets required of applicants. These differences in policy outputs can be attributed to important variations in the policy-making process, in particular in the extent of bureaucratic control over policy-making, and in the capacity for venue shopping on the part of internal and external actors. This article develops ideas around bureaucratic control and how it interacts with venue shopping in two Westminster-inspired systems of government in the skilled immigration area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and PracticeSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207