MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Policy analytical capacity and evidence‐based policy‐making: Lessons from Canada

2009· article· en· W2068298920 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolicy makingPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)Public administrationWelfare economicsPolicy analysisHumanitiesEconomicsPhilosophyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Evidence‐based policy‐making represents a contemporary effort to reform or re‐structure policy processes in order to prioritize evidentiary or data‐based decision‐making. Like earlier efforts in the “policy analysis movement,” its aim is to avoid or minimize policy failures caused by a mismatch between government expectations and actual, on‐the‐ground conditions through the provision of greater amounts of policy‐relevant information. A significant factor affecting the ability of policy‐makers to engage in evidence‐based policy‐making pertains to both governmental and non‐governmental “policy analytical capacity.” That is, governments require a reasonably high level of policy analytical capacity to perform the tasks associated with managing the policy process in order to implement evidence‐based policy‐making and avoid several of the most common sources of policy failures. Recent studies, however, suggest that, even in advanced countries such as Canada, the level of policy analytical capacity found in many governments and non‐governmental actors is low, potentially contributing to both a failure of evidence‐based policy‐making as well as effectively dealing with many complex contemporary policy challenges. Sommaire: L'élaboration de politiques axée sur des éléments probants représente un effort contemporain de réforme ou de structuration des processus de politiques dans le but de donner la prioritéà la prise de décisions s'appuyant sur les preuves ou fondée sur les données. Comme pour les efforts antérieurs du « mouvement d'analyse de politiques », le but est d'éviter ou de minimiser les échecs de politiques causés par un décalage entre les attentes du gouvernement et les conditions réelles sur le terrain, grâce à la disposition de plus amples informations pertinentes aux politiques. Un facteur important touchant à l'aptitude des élaborateurs de politiques à s'engager dans une élaboration de politiques axée sur les éléments probants est liéà la « capacité d'analyse de politiques » aussi bien gouvernementale que non gouvernementale. C'est‐à‐dire que les gouvernements exigent un niveau raisonnablement élevé de capacité d'analyse de politiques en vue d'exécuter les tâches associées à la gestion du processus politique pour mettre en œuvre l'élaboration de politiques axée sur les éléments probants et éviter ainsi plusieurs sources courantes d'échecs de politiques. Néanmoins, des études récentes laissent entendre que, même dans les pays développés comme le Canada, le niveau de capacité d'analyse de politiques observé dans de nombreux gouvernements et chez un grand nombre d'acteurs non gouvernementaux est faible ; cela pourrait éventuellement contribuer à la fois à un échec de l'élaboration de politiques axées sur les éléments probants ainsi qu'à l'échec de régler efficacement de nombreux problèmes contemporains complexes en matière de politiques.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.150 · 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