Bibliographic record
Abstract
This June 2022 issue of Politics & Policy (P&P) showcases ten articles that cover an array of politics, policy, and public administration questions focusing on Europe, North America, Australia, and beyond. Simon and Tatalovich (2022) tackle turnout bias and U.S. referendum results, while Lecours and Béland (2022) compare the differences in oil and gas pipeline policy in the United States and Canada. Our next articles concentrate on public administration and local government. Kuchina-Musina and Morris (2022) examine the decision process in public–private partnerships for contracting out innovation and Diaz-Kope and Morris (2022) explore the organizational motivations driving local cross-sector watershed collaboration. We then move to administrative intensity in Australian local government in Victoria (Tran & Dollery, 2022) and New South Wales (Yarram et al., 2022). Readers are encouraged to study these detailed pieces together. Europe is the focus for the following three articles. Regarding Swedish health-care management and governance, Svallfors and others (2022) submit an extremely interesting discussion on expert reports for policy solutions and the risks involved in producing them. Wright (2022) analyzes the failure of pro-European agency in major British political parties during and after Brexit from a post-structuralist perspective, while Polovchenko (2022) studies the special powers of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Finally, Tawiah (2022) examines the relationships between political ideology, political parties, and environmental policy stringency in 23 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries over 23 years. We hope you enjoy the strong lineup of original research articles in this issue of P&P and, as always, look forward to your continued article submissions at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/polpol.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".