MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223573069

Institutionalized Partisan Advisors in Canada: Movers and Shapers, Buffers and Bridges

2012· dissertation· en· W2223573069 on OpenAlex
Jonathan Craft

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolitical scienceEngineeringPublic administrationAeronautics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of professional policy workers abounds with examinations of non-partisan public service policy actors, but offers much less systematic empirical study of appointed political staffs. This dissertation provides a comparative analysis of a subset of appointed political staff, termed herein as partisan advisors, whose primary functions are policy related. It documents the historical rise and contemporary policy activity of partisan advisors working in ministers’ and first ministers’ offices in three Canadian cases at the federal and sub-national levels (British Columbia and New Brunswick). Partisan advisors are important subjects of study given their privileged position in close proximity to ministers and at the very nexus of political-administrative relations but also due to their unique potential contributions as partisan-political policy workers. The dissertation offers a new theoretical framework to model and explicate partisan advisors as one of many sources of policy advice that circulate within ‘advisory systems’ and as privileged policy actors able to participate in policy formulation. Two models flowing from the framework facilitate the examination of the substantive and procedural aspects of partisan advisors’ policy formulation and advisory activity respectively. Interviews conducted with ministers, deputy ministers, and partisan advisors in all three cases reveal that, to varying degrees, partisan advisors have emerged as policy professionals who engage in important but often overlooked policy activity. Partisan advisors were found to be consequential to the provision and distribution of policy advice within their advisory systems as well as the specification and refinement of policy during development. Important variance was reported both within and among the cases that provides new insights related to how partisan-political actors within government engage in policy formulation, the configuration and operation of advisory systems, and the impact partisan advisors can have on the traditionally bilateral political-administrative relationship.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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