MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110474053 · doi:10.1177/0010414011428590

Political Structures, Social Diversity, and Public Policy

2011· article· en· W2110474053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Wallner

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDe factoDiversity (politics)PoliticsPublic policyState (computer science)Education policyIntervention (counseling)Political scienceHigher educationSociologyEconomic growthPolitical economyPublic administrationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mandatory education systems form a central pillar of modern social policy sectors. For two of the countries in North America, the expansion of mass public schooling followed similar trajectories. Despite surface-level similarities, there are important differences in the two countries that require explanation. Without national intervention, the Canadian provinces have instituted similar policies fashioning a de facto national education policy framework. State and local education policy, however, demonstrates major variations that Washington has been unable to smooth out. These outcomes confound conventional institutional or societal approaches. This article calls first for a synthesis of macro-level institutional and societal factors. To unravel the sector-specific attributes, the interactive effects of meso-level policy choices must be assessed. By dividing a sector into its individual dimensions, these effects can be appreciated and coupled with the institutional and societal forces outlined above to account for the distinctive features of Canadian and American mandatory education.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.448
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.012 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Political StudiesSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207