MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114082173 · doi:10.1017/s0008423913000541

Advocacy Coalitions and the Alberta <i>Water Act</i>

2013· article· en· W2114082173 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceCONTESTInclusion (mineral)LegislatureLegislationPower (physics)Public administrationWelfare economicsLawSociologyEconomicsSocial sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In 1996, the Alberta legislature passed the Water Act , a landmark piece of legislation that introduced a number of significant water policy reforms, including a variety of eco-support instruments: regulatory mechanisms that can be used to define and preserve a share of water for environmental protection and restoration purposes. This article explains the inclusion of eco-support instruments in the Water Act by combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework with Joseph Nye's distinction between “hard” and “soft” power. It identifies two main advocacy coalitions in the Alberta water policy subsystem, the “Greens” and the “Aggies,” and argues that the development of the Water Act can be characterized as a contest between Green soft power and Aggie hard power. Accordingly, the inclusion of eco-support instruments in the Water Act was the result of the Greens' newfound soft power, but the Aggies' enduring hard power ensured that more radical reforms were not undertaken. Résumé. En 1996, la législature de l'Alberta a adopté la loi sur l'eau, un projet de loi historique qui a introduit un certain nombre d'importantes réformes de la politique de l'eau, y compris une variété de l'éco-instruments de soutien: les mécanismes de régulation qui peuvent être utilisés pour définir et préserver une part de l'eau pour protection de l'environnement et à des fins de restauration. Cet article explique l'inclusion de l'éco-instruments de soutien à la loi sur l'eau en combinant l'Advocacy Coalition Framework avec distinction Joseph Nye entre «hard» et «soft» de puissance. Il identifie deux principales coalitions de plaidoyer dans le sous-système de l'Alberta, de la politique de l'eau “Verts” et le “Aggies, et affirme que le développement de la loi sur l'eau peut être caractérisé comme un concours entre soft power Vert et hard power Aggie. En conséquence, la prise en compte de l'éco-instruments de soutien à la loi sur l'eau a été le résultat des Verts soft power retrouvée, mais les Aggies énergie durable dur veillé à ce que des réformes plus radicales ne sont pas prises.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.273 · 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