The nature of legislated policy : a comparative analysis educational legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, an interprovincial comparative study, examined selected Canadian provincial educational legislation as metapolicy, that is, as policy which guides the educational policymaking process. The conceptual-analytical framework was suggested by concepts proposed by Kerr and by a re-formulation of legislated policy into the tasks and sub-tasks undertaken by provincial systems. The analyses, which dealt with format, content, type and purpose, as well as the relationships among these, led to the following conclusions: (1) although one may infer a Canada-wide concept of what constitutes a provincial educational system, no such inference may be made concerning the operations of, and services offered in individual educational institutions; (2) all provinces tend to use resource policies as the means of educational control; (3) three interlocking policy frameworks emerge— legal, procedural and operational—suggesting permissive, restrictive and invitational metapolicy characteristics; (4) most interprovincial differences occur in the area of services and operations—the area from which most controversial issues of a Canada-wide nature arise; and (5) non-specificity of purposes allows legislation to retain flexibility. Finally, specific modifications to the conceptual framework may enhance its utility as an analytic tool, namely, allowance for policies to qualify as educational on more than one count, consideration of policy flexibility, more precise classification within the resource policy category and a different analytical sequence in the use of the concepts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".