MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2587920851 · doi:10.29173/cais418

Public Policy Theory as a Framework for Studying Information Policy: The Case of Canada's Coalition for Public Information

2013· article· en· W2587920851 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cheryl Cowan Buchanwald

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic policyPolicy studiesPolicy analysisPublic administrationProcess (computing)Work (physics)Political scienceSociologyLawComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public policy theories are proving useful in a study of federal policy making for the Canadian 'information highway'. Preliminary analysis of the role of Canada's Coalition for Public Information (CPI) in the policy process indicates that existing theories such as John Kingdon's policy process theory and the work of William Coleman, Grace Skogstad and Paul Pross in policy community. . .

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0350.041
Scholarly communication0.0230.014
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI→Same topicPolitical Systems and Governance→French-language works237,207→