Policy communities and policy networks : the establishment of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada education policy in the Saskatchewan region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to determine what policy documents reveal about the domains of policy communities and policy networks in the development of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada educational policies for band managed schools in the Saskatchewan Region. This was a documentary study, which involved in excess of 5000 pages of documents for the period 1993 to 2005. The conceptual framework used for this study was based upon the theory relating to policy communities and policy networks in three processes: (a) the problem stream, (b) policy stream, and (c)political stream. This was drawn mainly from the work of John Kingdon (2002, 1995), Leslie Pal (1997, 1992), A. Paul Pross (1992), and Grace Coleman and William Skogstad (1990). The policy process was found to be state-directed with minimal involvement from the associational actors until 2003, when a critical event occurred which resulted in a realignment of the associational actors. Implications for theory included the role of a critical event in the realignment of the associational actors and the resulting change in the policy network. The networking within the subcommunities actors influenced the networking among them. Implications for practice emerging from this study pointed to the need for a tightly integrated associational system of actors when they are faced with a tightly integrated set of government actors, and the need to keep an issue on the public agenda even when it is not on the government and decision agenda. Implications for future research included the issue of policy development and implementation of the policy for the nominal roll process in other INAC regions in Canada and nominal roll policy development and implementation post 2005.
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 | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.064 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".