MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111255626 · doi:10.1093/scipol/sct004

Managing the environmental science-policy nexus in government: Perspectives from public servants in Canada and Australia

2013· article· en· W2111255626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon M. Hickey, Peter R. De Forest, Jean Sandall, B.M. Lalor, Rodney J. Keenan

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHickeyNatural resourceNexus (standard)Government (linguistics)Library scienceResource (disambiguation)SociologyPolitical scienceHistoryArt historyEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public sector environmental management involves complex and dynamic interactions between those responsible for the science, management and policy responsibilities of government. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study into the perspectives, experiences and understandings of senior bureaucrats from provincial/state and federal government agencies dealing with environmental issues across Canada and Australia. Participants described numerous social capital-related factors as influencing the use of science-based knowledge in government policy processes, including a lack of communication, trust and collaboration. Further, knowledge integration was raised as a major challenge facing governments seeking to enhance co-ordination among agencies and foster innovation. Participants also outlined a desire for more inter-disciplinary and socially robust environmental science to increase its understanding, legitimacy and relevance to decision-making. This paper offers grounded insights into some of the contemporary challenges and opportunities facing senior bureaucrats as they work to improve the connection between environmental science and policy in government.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativemedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0430.021
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience and Public PolicySame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207