MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794770658 · doi:10.1080/25741292.2018.1436376

Policy adaptability in practice

2018· article· en· W2794770658 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Design and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Sustainable Development
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsAdaptabilityAdaptation (eye)Climate changePublic policyAdaptive strategiesSustainable developmentAdaptive capacitySustainabilityRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementPolitical scienceManagement scienceBusinessEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing public policies to effectively address comingled economic, social and environmental issues is a fundamental challenge facing sustainable development policy-makers in the twenty-first century. Raising the stakes is the added challenge of doing so in today’s complex, dynamic and uncertain conditions. Policies that cannot perform under such conditions run the risk of not achieving their intended purpose and hindering the ability of individuals, communities and businesses to cope with and adapt to change. To explore the principles of adaptive policies, a four-year empirical investigation was launched in Canada and India to extract practical insights from complex adaptive systems literature and to study the characteristics of policies that have been effective under changing socio-economic and environmental conditions. Seven core principles for creating adaptive policies were identified and a practical policy analysis tool was developed to help policy-makers translate the principles into tangible recommendations. This paper presents the results of applications of the ADAPTool (Adaptive Design and Assessment Policy Tool) by four provincial governments in Canada on policies aimed at supporting climate change adaptation efforts. Lessons learned from the applications are discussed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · 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