MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099612430 · doi:10.1002/pam.20314

MPP programs emerging around the world19

2007· article· en· W2099612430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Iris Geva‐May, Greta Nasi, Alex Turrini, Claudia Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy Analysis and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCalifornia State University, SacramentoVictoria UniversityNational University of SingaporeYork UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversityGeorgetown UniversityUniversità BocconiUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Southern MaineArizona State UniversitySyracuse UniversityUniversity of MissouriUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillPepperdine UniversityGeorgia Institute of TechnologyGeorge Washington UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstUniversity of Southern CaliforniaOhio State UniversityGeorgia State UniversityUniversity of PittsburghGeorge Mason University
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Public policyPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsBusinessPublic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines public policy and management programs in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and makes comparisons with similar programs in the United States. Our study of public policy programs shows that there are many challenges ahead in terms of making good decisions on the form and content of programs that will add value to governments and citizens. Appropriate choices in terms of program design and pedagogy will reflect different economic, social, environmental, and cultural influences and will be shaped by history, values, and the roles of public policy and management professionals within a particular governmental context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy Analysis and ManagementSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207