MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068563213 · doi:10.2307/40203946

Misplaced Distrust: Policy Networks and the Environment in France, the United States, and Canada

2004· article· en· W2068563213 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustPolitical sciencePolitical economyPublic administrationSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eric MontpetitVancouver: UBC Press, 2003. xii, 154pp, $75.00 cloth (ISBN 0-7748-0908-6), $24.95 paper (ISBN 0-7748-0909-4, July 2004)Cynicism about government and the civil service has been deeply rooted in the public mind for so long that it is now cliche. We hardly need to read another op-ed piece or book decrying wasteful bureaucracies, corrupt politicians or self-serving interest groups. Every possible argument in this line has already been made. For this reason it is refreshing to encounter a book that makes precisely the opposite case: citizens in the west should have more faith in their governments, not less.Eric Montpetit bases this claim on purely pragmatic reasoning. Popular cynicism would be justified if the process of governance produced bad policy. But in fact, he argues, government--working in conjunction with civil society--makes good policy decisions more often than not. It is easy, but incorrect, to complain about how badly we are governed.Rather than examining governance in general across the G7, Montpetit focuses on agro-environmental policy in France, the US and Canada. He devises a theoretical framework for measuring the quality of policy and uses it to evaluate the empirical evidence from these three countries. In the process of building this framework, he dismisses some popular methods of judging policy. It is insufficient simply to ask citizens whether they are satisfied with a given decision; popularity alone is not a good measure of policy. Similarly, he claims, it is not possible in every case to gauge the success of a policy by its results. It is often difficult to establish a definite casual link between, say, banning certain pollutants and improved water quality, or between changing the tax code and economic growth. Since neither of these more obvious methods provides the certainty that social science demands, Montpetit is left with a second-best approach to evaluating policy. According to this reasoning, a good policy is one which addresses the concerns of the relevant group of public sector and civil society experts. In the specific case of agriculture and the environment, this means targeting agricultural pollution, requiring changes in farmers' behaviour, addressing a range of farming practices and taking into account the economic impact of the proposed changes. Given this logic, one can only conclude that the actual consequences of a policy--whether good or bad--are irrelevant to its quality. …

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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