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
The Mission Statement of the Policy Studies Journal states: “Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is dedicated to providing scholars with the finest theoretically grounded, empirically sound, and cutting edge research covering all aspects of public policy.” Four years ago, when we first took over management of the Journal, we used these words to guide and inform our editorial decisions. Long hours were spent discussing the selection and use of the editorial board; selection, retention, and updating of reviewers; but above all we focused on the words that filled the pages of the PSJ. In the beginning, we focused primarily on the words in the middle. The words that authors had submitted that link practice and theory, that inform and challenge, and that expand our collective horizon of knowledge. As time has progressed though, we have been drawn to all the other words not included within the text of articles, and how they have changed tells an interesting story about the course of research in our times. Of particular interest are the symbols of all the organizations involved with the current Journal production. These include the University of Oklahoma, the University of Kansas, Louisiana State University, the APSA Policy Section, the Policy Studies Organization, and Blackwell Publishing. These organizations are now all staples of our production, but this particular issue also owes credit to the University of Colorado Denver and George Washington University. With the advent of our modern information sharing tools, the actual “home” of the Journal is somewhere in cyberspace, and the end product benefits from the timely contributions from many centers throughout the country. This is not unlike the research we have been publishing as of late, where the majority of the work is coauthored and many of those partnerships are across institutions as opposed to within one. With the advances in communications and data sharing, there is a rapid deterioration of the restrictions imposed by locale and institution. This change is evident in the body of the Journal as well. Beyond the institutions of the authors listed here, there is also a broadening of the substantive content. The articles in this current issue all examine policy impacts applicable worldwide, with a majority assessing impacts measured internationally. Our lead article, by Alok Bohara, Mani Nepal, and Nejem Raheem (University of New Mexico) and Neil Mitchell (University of Aberdeen), present a cross-national evaluation of the effects of organizational transparency on opposition repression. The second article, authored by Diane Stone (University of Warwick), endeavors to clarify the concept of “global public policy,” and the new processes and managerial modes associated with this new transnational governance. Our third piece, authored by Jeffrey Kash (Western Kentucky University), applies the policy design elements developed by Ingram and Schneider to agricultural conservation policy. We close this first issue with the second (and final) installment of our symposium on Voluntary Environmental Programs (VEPs), guest edited by Jorge Rivera (George Washington University) and Peter deLeon (University of Colorado Denver). This set of papers extends the questions of interest pursued in the last issue to include the effect of country on the outcomes of voluntary programs. The first article, by Magali Delmas (University of California San Barbara) and Ivan Montiel (University of Texas Pan American) examines the diffusion of self-regulatory programs cross-nationally. Nicole Darnall and Stephen Sides (George Mason University) examine the effects of certification on program performance, and Allen Blackman (Resources for the Future) studies voluntary regulation in developing countries. The set closes with Irene Henriques and Perry Sadorsky (York University) analyzing the implementation of VEPs in the Canadian context. As always, our editorial policies are designed to bring you the best writing in public policy, covering the range of theoretical and substantive developments in the field. We continue to urge you to send your best papers to the Policy Studies Journal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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