MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103310599 · doi:10.3386/w13459

How Does the Government (Want to) Fund Science? Politics, Lobbying and Academic Earmarks

2007· report· en· W2103310599 on OpenAlexaff
John de Figueiredo, Brian S. Silverman

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2007
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian GovernmentNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines academic earmarks and their role in the funding of university research.It provides a summary and review of the evidence on the supply of earmarks by legislators.It then discusses the role of university lobbying for earmarks on the demand side.Finally, the paper examines the impact of earmarks on research quantity and 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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.509
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.064 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207