Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The mechanisms of British policymaking can be considered within ideological, theoretical and realist frameworks. The theoretical approaches have been more overtly influenced by anglophone countries – the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – rather than elsewhere in Europe (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000). These approaches have been focused on the development and adoption of New Public Management ideologies (Hood, 1995, 1998; Newman, 2001), networked/relational schools (Bevir and Rhodes, 2003) and, more recently, choice-based architectures (Greener, 2008; Dowding and John, 2009) and behavioural insight (Halpern, 2009; Dolan et al, 2010). These have all drawn from policy experiences that have been influenced by international exchanges of staff and cross-country learning (Margetts et al, 2012). This has been primarily driven at the political level by the Labour Party. Before 1997, it drew on Clinton's experience in the US (Cole, 1998; Freeden, 1999; Deacon, 2000) and this was then passed on to the Labor Party in Australia (Frankel, 1997; Deacon, 2000). Both Canada and New Zealand had also been engaged in public sector reform experiments, particularly focused on integrated working, which were also used as exemplars (Hewison, 2001; McLain and McMillan, 2003). The ideological dominance of a neoliberal economic model, with its focus on efficient welfarism, has been antithetical to some EU states, which have regarded the UK as being too strongly influenced by the US (Cerney and Evans, 2004; Clarke, 2004). However, the focus on realist performance management, which has been a dominant feature of British public policy since 1997 (Newman, 2001; Cutler and Waine, 2002; Harrison, 2002; Hood, 2002), has also been influenced by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) benchmarking practices (OECD, 1996; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000; van Thiel and Leeuw, 2002). This comparative approach based on external evaluation of performance and outcomes has spread into Europe, although not as New Public Management. Rather, it has been influential in the role of OECD country reviews and the development of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), which has been developed as a soft governance method within the EU since 1999 (CEC, 2001; Heritier, 2001a; Radaelli, 2003; Haahr, 2004). Setting British public policy agendas UK policymaking agendas are characterised as being responsive, flexible and short-term, rather than strategic. The dominant process of central policymaking in Britain is episodic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.011 |
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".