MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101524718 · doi:10.1080/21622671.2020.1837225

Ideas, federalism and policy feedback: an institutionalist approach

2020· article· en· W3101524718 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerritory Politics Governance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismPoliticsDimension (graph theory)Political sciencePublic administrationCooperative federalismWork (physics)Public policyIdentity (music)Historical institutionalismSociologyFocus (optics)Positive economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federalism and policy feedback are central issues within the institutionalist tradition, but scholars who study the role of ideas within that tradition have paid surprisingly limited attention to these two issues. More specifically, within the public policy literature, little has been published about the relationship between federalism and the ideational dimension of policy feedback. The objective of this article is to explore this relationship at the theoretical level before illustrating basic analytical claims about it through empirical work. The empirical sections draw on two case studies from Canada to illustrate the interaction between federalism and ideational policy feedback over time: provincial social policy, with a focus on Quebec, and the federal National Energy Program, with a focus on its impact on Alberta. The analysis stresses the role of identity formation in mediating the connection between ideational and institutional processes in federal political systems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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