MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167112043 · doi:10.1177/01447394211019458

Training for policy capacity: A practitioner’s reflection on an in-house intervention for civil servants, students, and post-secondary graduates in Canada

2021· article· en· W3167112043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bobby Thomas Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Public Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipCivil servantsCapacity buildingGovernment (linguistics)Psychological interventionWork (physics)Public policyPublic relationsCapacity developmentSociologyPolitical sciencePublic administrationIntervention (counseling)Civil servantPedagogyMedical educationPoliticsNursingMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial amount of scholarly work focuses on conceptualizing, theorizing and studying the policy capacity of governments. Yet, guidance for practitioners on developing policy capacity training programs is lacking. In this article, I reflect on my experience as a public servant in the provincial government of Prince Edward Island where I designed and implemented the Policy Capacity Development and Mentorship Program for civil servants, recent graduates and students. In this article, I offer a descriptive overview of the framework and logic of the program and discuss how I integrated policy capacity theory. This article may serve other practitioners who seek to implement similar programs in their respective organizations and provides a base for future interventions. The article also offers thoughts on practitioner-led collaboration with academics and recommendations for those who would like to establish similar programs in their organizations.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207