Institutional Policy Coherence: The Case of Swiss Transparency Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy coherence has been studied primarily under the scope of several public policies. However, few studies have been made on the coherence between institutional and public policies. This article addresses policy coherence as such. Based on a model of the hierarchy of institutions developed by Knoepfel et al. (2006), we examine the case of the Swiss Law on transparency (LTrans). Knoepfel et al.’s model suggests that there is a hierarchy of normative institutions, where each level can have positive or negative effects upon a lower level. This model places institutional policies at a higher level than public policies, suggesting that tensions between institutional and public policies can impede the implementation of the latter. This can result in either a public policy killer or an institutional policy killer situation. Our study of the LTrans shows that one can observe constant tensions between institutional elements of LTrans and the act itself. However these tensions resulted in an equilibrium instead of either a public policy killer situation or an institutional policy killer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".