MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556259274 · doi:10.1002/app5.158

Insights for Indigenous Policy from the Applied Behavioural Sciences

2016· article· en· W2556259274 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicholas Biddle

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia & the Pacific Policy Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgePrinceton UniversityUniversity of TorontoYale University
KeywordsIndigenousDisadvantageBehavioural sciencesGovernment (linguistics)Public policyPublic economicsPolicy developmentPolicy SciencesSociologyEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic administrationSocial scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract People are neither completely rational, nor completely random in their decisions. Rather, they exhibit predictable biases that not only make it less likely that they will achieve their own stated desires, but also complicate the design and efficiency of public policy. These are some of the insights of the emerging applied behavioural sciences. With some notable exceptions, these insights have not always filtered through to policy formulation. Policy related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australians is one example of an area where insights from the applied behavioural sciences have the potential to improve the quality of policy decisions. A large amount of government funds is spent on Indigenous people reflecting a high degree of disadvantage. This paper provides new data and insights to understand the patterns and factors associated with decisions made by Indigenous people, thereby helping to improve the effectiveness of Indigenous policy.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia & the Pacific Policy StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207