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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.066

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; 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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