Reflections on Our Understanding of Policy Paradigms and Policy Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversation among policy scholars on the subject of policy paradigms. It provides a window into the research frontier of policy dynamics and a re-evaluation of the precision and utility of existing policy paradigm orthodoxy. A ‘policy paradigm’ constitutes a theoretical tool to specify and understand the guiding principles, or ideas, for creating public policy, why the various actors involved are involved, and why they pursue the strategies they do. The book provides unique and varied insights into the current state of the art regarding how a range of scholars understand such paradigms, and public policy ideas, both conceptually and empirically. It does this by drawing together contributions from leading political science and social science researchers, to provide a multidimensional set of perspectives on how paradigm-related elements such as policy ideas, coalitions, discourses, interests, crises, anomalies and routines contribute to policy development and our understanding of that process. As academics, we are conscious that, by presenting a variety of perspectives in one book, we and our readers can learn from each other. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".