MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN AN AFRICAN STATE: AN EXTENSION OF KINGDON'S MULTIPLE‐STREAMS APPROACH

2009· article· en· W2035697834 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

VenuePublic Administration · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseContext (archaeology)STREAMSTransferabilityExtension (predicate logic)State (computer science)Empirical researchPublic economicsSociologyPolitical sciencePositive economicsComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsIncentiveEpistemologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kingdon's multiple‐streams framework, which emerged in the mid‐1980s, today forms one of the indispensable analytical frameworks for understanding public policy agenda‐setting. However, it is only in the context of wealthy countries that this approach has been validated for setting the agenda of national and international policies. This article reports the results of empirical research in an African state studying the transferability of a threefold theoretical innovation. The question under consideration is whether the multiple‐streams framework is useful for examining public policy implementation at the local level and in the context of a low income country. The research findings confirm the premise that the multiple‐streams framework can be extended and can lead to the formulation of several theoretical propositions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.337 · 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