Diusion of Policy Attention in Canada: Evidence from Speeches from the Throne, 1960-2008.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the latest development in the public policy literature, theories of policy di¤usion have rapidly grown and established some crucial results in the knowledge of di¤usion processes. Aside from political scientists, political economists and sociologists are also investigating more and more the policy di¤usion processes without necessarily identifying it as such explicitly. The scal federalism literature, in particular, provides a good example of scholars thinking about the impact of tax and scal choices of some jurisdictions on other ones. This avenue of research underlines two important considerations: space and time. Space since in a federal system, some vertical strategic interactions occur between the centre and the local jurisdictions and horizontal strategic interactions arise when jurisdictions compete among themselves (Boadway and Shah, 2009). Time since the reaction of a local government can be simultaneously based on the neighboring jurisdictionsdecisions or derived from rational or limited rational expectations (Besley and Case, 1995). Although we do not ignore such developments in the recent literature, our argument is not directly linked to political actorsbehavior in a federal system. Instead, we choose to focus on how
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".