MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147279532 · doi:10.1093/jpart/mug017

Dealing with Wicked Problems in Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from a Network Perspective

2003· article· en· W2147279532 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen van Bueren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)SociologyEnvironmental ethicsManagement scienceEpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy makers in today's network society are increasingly confronted with complex and wicked policy problems that require collective action. This article analyzes such a collective action problem from a policy network perspective. By explaining impasses and breakthroughs in decision‐making processes from a cognitive, a social, and an institutional point of view, the network perspective offers explanations for the presence and absence of collective action.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.018
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations386
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Administration Research and TheorySame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207