Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les relations entre les centres de recherche ou groupes de réflexion et leurs bailleurs de fonds sont importantes dans les théories et les discours publics abordant la question de l'orientation politique de la recherche sur les politiques publiques. Pourtant, très peu d'études examinent systématiquement ces relations à travers un ensemble de cas. Cet article, avec des méthodes comparatives et relationnelles, teste les théories élitiste, pluraliste et de terrain, en analysant des données portant sur le financement et l'orientation politique de 30 groupes de réflexion de 2000 à 2011. Les résultats démontrent que les dons provenant de l'étranger contribuent à soutenir certains groupes de réflexions conservateurs, mais ce financement demeure tout de même marginal dans l'ensemble. Au niveau national, les groupes de réflexion sont financés de manière contrastée: les groupes conservateurs sont financés principalement par des donateurs privés, alors que les groupes de réflexion centristes sont financés principalement par l'état. Depuis 2005, les liens entre l'ensemble des groupes de réflexion conservateurs, financés par des donateurs privés, sont devenus plus serrés. En revanche, les liens entre l'ensemble des groupes de réflexion centristes se sont relâchés et leur financement dépend de plus en plus de leurs propres revenus et des intérêts de leurs investissements. Ces résultats laissent planer un certain doute sur les prédictions qui découlent des théories élitiste et pluraliste et confirment en partie les suppositions de la théorie de terrain. The relationships between think tanks and their funders are central to theory and public discourse about the politics of policy knowledge, yet very little research systematically examines these relationships across cases. This article evaluates elite, pluralist, and field theories by analyzing original data on funding and politics for 30 think tanks from 2000 to 2011 with comparative and relational methods. I find that foreign donations help support some conservative think tanks, but that it is a small amount of money relative to other funding sources. Domestically, think tank funding is structured by an opposition between donor‐funded conservatives and state‐funded centrists. Since 2005, the cluster of conservative think tanks funded by private donors has become tighter, while the cluster of think tanks supported by the state has become looser and more reliant on self‐generated revenue and interest and investments. These findings cast doubt on predictions derived from elite and pluralist theories, and offer some support for field theory.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".