MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511600205 · doi:10.13165/vpa-16-15-2-06

The issue attention cycle model and corruption issues in Canada and Kazakhstan

2016· article· en· W2511600205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mergen Dyussenov

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Policy And Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEconomic Growth and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthoritarianismLanguage changeDemocracyPolitical sciencePoliticsPolitical economyDevelopment economicsEconomicsPositive economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research paper attempts to apply the issue attention cycle model of Anthony Downs to corruption issues in the contexts of Canada as a democracy, and Kazakhstan as a soft authoritarian regime. The major contributions to the existing body of knowledge include: 1. replicating the Down’s model to analyze the corruption issue across the two countries; and 2. attempting to observe cycle variations depending on the nature of political regimes, and thus holding the regime as an independent variable as applied to the Down’s model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Policy And AdministrationSame topicEconomic Growth and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207