MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050883425 · doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.05.006

Tears from an onion: Layering, exhaustion and conversion in British Columbia land use planning policy

2009· article· en· W2050883425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tim Thielmann, Chris Tollefson

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy and Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsProfitability indexNoveltyLand useLayeringEconomicsPolitical economyPolitical scienceEconomic systemSociologyLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most previous studies of policy change in the BC resource and environmental sectors have stressed the importance of exogenous factors, notably the changing profitability of key industries, such as forestry; the appearance of new actors and policy ideas; and the domestic and international linkages so ably exploited by ENGOs. Without denying the importance of these factors, this case study of BC’s integrated land use policy illustrates the weight that policy legacies bring to bear on the path of policy transformation. This study explores the interplay of the processes and outcomes of policy change by comparing the processes and outcomes of three consecutive regime transitions in BC land use policy. The transitions suggest a complex relationship between layering, exhaustion, and conversion, in which layered elements that are pushed to the background of the policy regime can either be allowed to die or be brought back to become the centrepiece of a policy transition that takes place without the appearance (and associated political costs) of novelty.

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)0.011
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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy and SocietySame topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207