MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LIFE AND DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION: THE CASE OF COLLECTIVE WHEAT MARKETING IN AUSTRALIA

2010· article· en· W2086548991 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionDemisePoliticsInstitutional changeReproductionInstitutionalismNew institutionalismSociologyHistorical institutionalismPositive economicsPolitical economyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1980s, there has been renewed interest among political scientists in the role of institutions. An important strand of this ‘new institutionalism’ is historical institutionalism. Recent theoretical developments have sought to address the most obvious criticisms of the historical institutionalist approach, particularly the critique relating to its tendency to focus on explanations of stability. However, the institutional histories under consideration are generally incomplete as they do not include the entire life of the institution. Drawing on the history of collective wheat marketing in Australia, this article seeks to address this gap by considering a case in which strategies of institutional reproduction initially appeared to have managed change successfully but ultimately sowed the seeds of institutional demise. By considering the death as well as the life of an institution, we can gain a clearer picture of the effectiveness of institutional strategies of adaptation and change.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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