How is research policy across the OECD organised?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on a newly created policy indicator database, this paper provides a first systematic comparison of the governance of public research policy across 35 OECD countries from 2005 to 2017. The database was obtained following a three-year process that involved the development of an ontology of the governance of public research policy as well as data collection and validation by national authorities. The data show diverse institutions and mechanisms of policy action regarding higher education institutions (HEIs) and public research institutes (PRIs) are in place across the 35 OECD countries. The data also shows an increasing use of project funding, performance contracts and performance evaluations for HEIs and PRIs. In many countries, HEIs and PRIs are autonomous regarding their relations with industry, budget allocation but less frequently regarding salaries. Recent reforms have strengthened external stakeholders' participation in their governance, reflecting efforts to open research institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it