Policy Dialogue and Engagement between Non-Governmental Organizations and Government: A Survey of Processes and Instruments of Canadian Policy Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various analysts have raised concerns respecting declining research, evaluation and analytical capacities within public services. Typically, the decline is attributed to reforms associated with neoliberal restructuring of the state and its concomitant managerial expression in New Public Management (NPM). This has given rise to a conceptual shift now commonly captured as a movement from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Policy advising from a new governance perspective entails an image of a more distributed policy advisory system where a plurality of actors, including non-state actors, engages with government in deliberating policy interventions to address collective problems. The original research presented here suggests that those responsible for policy work across four policy communities in the three Canadian provinces surveyed differ in terms of their capacities, depth of commitment to a specific policy file/field, roles and functions, as well as perceptions of the policy work that they undertake. Over the past several years, a number of primarily quantitative analyses examining the processes, tools and perspectives of Canadian federal and provincial government policy analysts have been published. Consequently, a significant knowledge-base has been acquired respecting what government policy analysts do and their attitudes toward their work but very little is known about external interactions with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
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 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".