MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANÁLISE BIBLIOMÉTRICA SOBRE POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS

2019· article· pt· W2997350076 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Políticas Públicas · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Public Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of TorontoUniversity of PennsylvaniaYork UniversityConnaught FundUniversity of OxfordHarvard UniversityUniversity of WashingtonColumbia University
KeywordsTimelinePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)HumanitiesTheme (computing)Public policyGeographyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho tem como objetivo mostrar a evolução do tema políticas públicas no contexto mundial e nacional por meio de uma análise bibliométrica. Faz um levantamento de indicadores mais gerais na avaliação global, como o histórico temporal das publicações e os países que mais debatem sobre o tema; enquanto na conjuntura brasileira traz indicadores mais específicos, tais como a rede de colaboração do Brasil com outros países e instituições. Os resultados mostraram que a primeira publicação sobre o tema estudado surgiu em 1909, no cenário mundial, e em 1987 no Brasil; os Estados Unidos destacaram-se na pesquisa com maior número de publicações. Apesar do desenvolvimento tardio na área de políticas públicas, o Brasil ocupa o quarto lugar no ranque mundial. Em relação às instituições, a USP concentra o maior volume de trabalhos publicados, no entanto, Estados Unidos ganha no todo.Palavras-chave: Bibliometria. Políticas Públicas. Indicadores.BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC POLICIESAbstractThis work aims at showing the evolution of the public policy theme in a national and worldwide context by means of a bibliometric analysis. More general indicators on the global assessment were proposed, such as the timeline of publications and countries that most debate the theme; while in the Brazilian conjuncture, more specific indicators were generated, such as the partnership network between Brazil and other countries and institutions. The main results showed that the first publication in the world about the theme under study was in 1909, while in Brazil it was in 1987. They also demonstrated thatthe United States stood out relating to the number of publications. Another question was that, despite the late development of the area of public policies, Brazil ranks fourth worldwide. Regarding institutions, Universidade de São Paulo-USP (Sao Paulo University) concentrates the largest amount of published works, however, the United States stands out as a whole.Keywords: Bibliometry. Public Policies. Indexes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.023

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.345 · 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