Detecting causality in policy diffusion processes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A universal question in network science entails learning about the topology of interaction from collective dynamics. Here, we address this question by examining diffusion of laws across US states. We propose two complementary techniques to unravel determinants of this diffusion process: information-theoretic union transfer entropy and event synchronization. In order to systematically investigate their performance on law activity data, we establish a new stochastic model to generate synthetic law activity data based on plausible networks of interactions. Through extensive parametric studies, we demonstrate the ability of these methods to reconstruct networks, varying in size, link density, and degree heterogeneity. Our results suggest that union transfer entropy should be preferred for slowly varying processes, which may be associated with policies attending to specific local problems that occur only rarely or with policies facing high levels of opposition. In contrast, event synchronization is effective for faster enactment rates, which may be related to policies involving Federal mandates or incentives. This study puts forward a data-driven toolbox to explain the determinants of legal activity applicable to political science, across dynamical systems, information theory, and complex networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it