MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286495524 · doi:10.1177/14789299221109081

Covid-19 Policy Convergence in Response to Knightian Uncertainty

2022· article· en· W4286495524 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony M. Sayers, Christa Scholtz, David Armstrong, Christopher Kam, Christopher Alcantara

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Studies Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConvergence (economics)IncentiveDivergence (linguistics)Punishment (psychology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsKnightian uncertaintyPoliticsPublic opinionPublic policySet (abstract data type)Public economicsPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsAmbiguityLawMacroeconomicsSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic policy responses to COVID-19 were remarkably consistent during the early days of the pandemic. What explains this policy convergence? Our formal model suggests that the novel character of COVID-19 produced a period of maximum policy uncertainty, incentivizing political actors to converge on a common set of policies to minimize their exposure to electoral punishment. This convergence is likely to break down as policy feedback produces opinion divergence among experts and the public and as politicians recalculate the costs and benefits of various policy responses and under some conditions facing incentives to adopt extreme policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Studies ReviewSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207