MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306641765 · doi:10.1111/gove.12719

Award Citation: The Charles H. Levine Memorial Book Prize, 2022

2022· article· en· W4306641765 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGovernance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität Potsdam
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Argentina by Virginia Oliveros, as the 2022 recipients of the Levine Award.Drawing on a novel theoretical policy arenas framework and comparative empirical analyses of Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and the United States, Ellermann offers a fascinating and insightful investigation into the diversity of immigration policy choices, and the causes of policy change or persistence over time and across jurisdictions.The book offers a novel theoretical, conceptual, and empirical contribution to the institutional analysis of the politics of immigration policy making: Spatial and temporal stability and change in liberal and restrictive immigration policies across policy arenas are the products of distinct types of political insulation with their distinctive policy logics that inform the capacity of policy makers.It is a superb example of an innovative theoretical argument used to understand a pressing public policy issue that pushes the public policy literature forward by emphasizing both actor preferences and institutional settings forming arenas to pursue them.A masterful achievement and a must-read for immigration scholars, political and policy scientists, institutionalists, and policy makers."How does patronage actually work in Argentina?"The issue of patronage has been widely studied, but how patronage works, has been rarely studied empirically.Drawing on laborious qualitative and quantitative analyses, Oliveros argues that patronage jobs are distributed to public sector employees in exchange for political services such as helping with campaigns and electoral support.In doing so, civil servants serve the success of their incumbent political masters.Introducing a theory of "self-enforcing patronage", she shows that patronage employment continues not only because or as long as clients comply with their patrons but also because patronage contracts are self-sustaining when they are distributed to supporters whose fates are tied to the fates of the politicians who hired them.The research design for studying such an alternative patronage mechanism entails a unique face-to-face survey, including list experiments, that has been fielded among mid-level public employees in three Argentinean municipalities.The book provides strong evidence for this mechanism of "self-enforcing patronage" and discusses the institutional features supporting this patronage, extending its relevance to other Latin American countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.277 · 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