MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914784542 · doi:10.1177/0952076719827068

Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design

2019· article· en· W2914784542 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Policy and Administration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Causal chainPolicy analysisManagement scienceFocus (optics)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceProcess managementBusinessEconomicsPolitical sciencePublic administrationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy design undertakes to develop effective policies and hence must understand whether and how effective policies can be formulated and implemented. However, very often policy design has failed to focus on the causal chain that represents the actual driver of policy effects and thus misconstrues the potential effectiveness of a policy design. A mechanistic perspective is extremely helpful for conceptualising and pinpointing such causal chains, as it focuses on the real processes that must be activated by policy-makers in implementing policy designs. This article identifies the main steps to be taken when adopting such a mechanistic approach to policy design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.275 · 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