Policy Work in Multi-Level States: Institutional Autonomy and Task Allocation among Canadian Policy Analysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Despite all the attention paid to the topic of policy analysis as a conceptual endeavour, empirically, the actual work of policy analysts is little investigated and little known. This is true generally of most countries and jurisdictions but it is most acute at the subnational level of government in multilevel states. Recent work in Canada, however, based on comprehensive surveys of analysts of provincial and territorial policy, on the one hand, and regionally and Ottawa-based federal policy workers on the other, has found many similarities with national-level work but also significant differences. This work has highlighted differences in the distribution of tasks across jurisdictions—mainly the extent to which policy work involves implementation as well as formulation-related activities—as key distinctions found in policy work across levels of the Canadian multilevel system. This article uses frequency and principal components analysis (PCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to probe these dimensions of policy work. It shows provincial and territorial analysts to be similar to regionally based federal workers in task allocation, undermining a straightforward depiction of differences in policy work by level of government. The extent of autonomy enjoyed by policy workers in different jurisdictional venues, both from internal actors and those outside of government, is shown to be the key driver of differences in policy work across levels of government. Résumé.Malgré toute l'attention accordée au thème de l'analyse politique comme un effort conceptuel, empirique du travail réel des analystes des politiques est peu étudié et mal connu. Ceci est vrai en général de la plupart des pays et juridictions, mais est le plus aigu au niveau sous-national de gouvernement dans les États multi-niveaux. Des travaux récents au Canada, cependant, basée sur des enquêtes complètes des provinces et des territoires, d'une part, et régional et basée à Ottawa analystes de la politique fédérale, d'autre part, a trouvé de nombreuses similitudes avec le travail au niveau national mais aussi des différences significatives. Ce travail a mis en évidence des différences dans la répartition des tâches entre les administrations – notamment la mesure dans laquelle le travail politique consiste à la mise en œuvre ainsi que la formulation des activités liées – comme les distinctions clés trouvés dans le travail politique à travers les niveaux de l'canadienne système multi-niveau. Cet article utilise la fréquence et analyse en composantes principales (ACP) et la modélisation par équations structurelles (SEM) pour sonder ces dimensions du travail politique. Il montre les analystes provinciaux et territoriaux à être semblables à l'échelle régionale basée sur les travailleurs fédéraux dans la répartition des tâches, minant une représentation directe des différences dans le travail politique, par niveau de gouvernement. Le degré d'autonomie dont jouissent les travailleurs dans les différents lieux de la politique juridictionnelle – à la fois par des acteurs internes et ceux de l'extérieur du gouvernement – se révèle être le principal moteur de différences dans le travail politique à travers les niveaux de gouvernement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".