Strategic policy narratives: A narrative policy study of the Columbia River Crossing
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
This study examines how coalitions in local policy contexts implore policy narratives to expand or contain the scope of policy issues. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), a maturing theory of the policy process, is utilized in this study to conduct content analysis on 370 public documents from competing coalitions in relation to the Columbia River Crossing project; a “wicked” policy issue in the Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA region of the Pacific Northwest. From this case selection, it is hypothesized that competing coalitions will use narrative strategies of containment and expansion to achieve their desired policy outcomes. It is also theorized that shocks to a policy subsystem may result in a shift to coalitional narrative strategies. This research will shed light on how coalitions strategically implore policy narratives in cohesive and less cohesive ways to influence policy outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it