MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047196613 · doi:10.1002/bl.38620005004

Creating your policy governance tool kit

2000· article· en· W2047196613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueBoard Leadership · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceWork (physics)Bass (fish)Public administrationManagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Board that is working hard to use Policy Governance faces a special challenge when searching for tools to help it do its work. It needs to make sure that the tools it chooses and the tools it develops on its own are truly a help and not a hindrance in getting the full benefits of Policy Governance. Caroline Oliver, a governance consultant based in Canada and editor of The Policy Governance Fieldbook Practical Lessons, Tips, and Tools from the Experiences of Real‐World Boards (San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1999), sheds some light on what kind of tools are helpful and how to choose wisely.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoard LeadershipSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207