MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Politics of Policy Evaluation

2009· book-chapter· en· W256235996 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Bovens, Paul ‘t Hart, Sanneke Kuipers

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical sciencePolicy analysisPublic administrationPublic policyKey (lock)Computer scienceLawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses the politics of policy evaluation and approaches this in two ways, each with its own shortcomings and crucial strengths. The first approach looks at the roles and functions of policy evaluation and puts them in the wider politics of public policy making. The second looks at how the key schools of policy analysis propose to deal with the contested and inherently political nature of evaluation. The article ends with an original view of how policy analysis may cope with the challenge of ex post evaluation.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.034
Scholarly communication0.0200.015
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations136
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207