MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498847923 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410

The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis

2016· article· en· W2498847923 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPopularityField (mathematics)Policy analysisKey (lock)Political scienceRegional sciencePublic administrationSociologyComputer scienceLawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Kingdon’s multiple-streams framework has been widely used since the publication of his book Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies in 1984. The popularity of this agenda-setting framework in comparative policy analysis is especially interesting because the book focused exclusively on the United States. It is not clear, however, that a framework developed exclusively on the basis of the examination of a single, somewhat idiosyncratic national case should be able to generate insights useful in comparative research. This article discusses the nature of the multiple-streams framework and its impact on comparative policy analysis, before outlining its contribution to key debates in the field.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.375 · 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