Can International Relations and Comparative Politics Be Policy Relevant? Theory and Methods for Incorporating Political Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How might one bring international relations (IR) and comparative politics (CP) observations into the public policy (PP) literature's predominant intellectual framing of policy, in which the normal analytical unit is a specific policy sector or type of regulatory institution? This article offers a practical framework to incorporate IR and CP directly into PP analyses. We present theory and methods for composing carefully structured, multiyear, analytical policy sector histories, suitable for international and comparative PP analysis, particularly when the research goal implies policy sector comparisons across wide variations of geography, culture, income, or historical epoch. Concretely, we propose two models, called the Leader State Framework in the case of international policy and the Varieties of Political Regimes Approach for policy at the national level, which should help policy analysts utilize important observations related to our disciplines’ understanding of the diverse host political systems within which policy sectors are embedded. Related Articles Glen , Carol M. 2014. “” Politics & Policy 42 (): 635 ‐ 657 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/doi/10.1111/polp.12093/abstract Khodr , Hiba , and Isabella Ruble . 2013. “.” Politics & Policy 41 (): 656 – 689 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12033/full Related Media . 2015. “Davos 2015 ‐ Forum Debate: A Multipolar World?” January 23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjGD_qFgPhE . 2013. “Argentina Debt: What Is the pari passu saga?” April 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGPfHrPQY6Y . 2014. “Why U.S. and China Agreed on Climate Change Action.” November 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmdyYgBtHSo
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".