MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093675212 · doi:10.5130/cjlg.v0i5.1478

Bridging the divide: Making research matter to local government

2010· article· en· W2093675212 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueCommonwealth Journal of Local Governance · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsCommonwealthDeclarationLocal governmentBridging (networking)Public administrationGovernment (linguistics)MainstreamPolitical scienceWork (physics)Public relationsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘Freeport Declaration on Improving Local Government: The Commonwealth Vision’, affirmed at the May 2009 Commonwealth Local Government Conference by 550 councillors, mayors, and senior officials from 48 countries, outlined the clear importance of research in public policy development. In the words of the Declaration: “practice oriented research should become more prominent in the work of CLGF,” and this is to be achieved through the Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF) Research Advisory Group, comprised of participants drawn from universities, training organizations and other research-related bodies in about a dozen member countries. These statements should be the basis of a radical change in how researchers engage local governments.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.251 · 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