Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter illustrates the building blocks of Cultural and Arts Policy in terms of six elements, namely ‘Philosophy’, ‘Perspective’, ‘Organizational Systems’, ‘Enabling Systems’, ‘Impacts’, and ‘Ramifications’. It is argued that the six elements offer a normative framework for evaluating culture and arts policies. The chapter proceeds to examine the culture and arts policies of the USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, and India in terms of the six building blocks proposed. The chapter also briefly surveys the contours of the culture and arts policies of the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and Kenya. The central point highlighted in this chapter is about the divide between countries which emphasize artistic freedom in their policies and those which consider arts and culture to be functional and germane to nation building. The chapter concludes by stating that the proposed normative framework of culture/arts policy analyses will be helpful to managers of arts organizations to analyse the culture/arts policies of the countries in which they operate and determine what strategies they need to frame and pursue in order to ensure the sustenance of 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".