MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“We Seem to Have Always Spoken in Prose . . .” Policy Analysis Is a Clinical Profession: Implications for Policy Analysis Practice and Instruction

2007· article· en· W2154350428 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Studies Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolicy analysisRationalityClinical PracticeCognitionProcess (computing)Relevance (law)Bounded rationalityPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicinePublic administrationLawArtificial intelligenceNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is (i) to propose the concept of policy analysis as a clinical profession, (ii) to relate to the clinical intellectual processes involved in policy analysis, and (iii) following studies in other clinical disciplines, to infer implications for policy analysis and policy analysis instruction. The article will highlight notions of clinical reasoning and clinical cognitive processes relevant to policy analysis and will address reasoning errors associated with bounded rationality and uncertainty in the clinical analytic process. The article seeks to promote awareness of clinical notions and of their relevance for policy analysis practice and instruction.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.324 · 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