Canadian Public Policy Analysis and Public Policy Programs: A Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to place Canadian public policy programs in a comparative context and to provide an overview that identifies the status of the Canadian public policy analysis profession and policy analysis/policy studies instruction in light of domestic and global developments.1 The authors acknowledge that instruction plays a crucial role in the training as well as in the future approach and orientation of policy analysts and they analyze shifts in the perspective of policy analysis studies and policy analysis instruction.This preliminary comparative paper primarily discusses the characteristics and training needs of policy studies/analysis by tracking the needs of the profession; the development of the field to date; orientations arising from conceptual and historical developments in Canada, the United States, and Europe, and shaping particular public policy programs, curriculum orientations, and practices; and implications of and lessons drawn from the various contexts in comparison to Canada. Throughout the paper the terms policy analysis and policy studies are used interchangeably, because in the various traditions highlighted in this paper, programs of policy studies, rather than policy analysis, are prevalent. Policy analysis skills are promoted, albeit with various degrees of emphasis, within these programs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".