MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309001482 · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12564

Assessing policy analytical capacity in contemporary governments: New measures and metrics

2022· article· en· W4309001482 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Migone, Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Public Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Public economicsSalience (neuroscience)Public policyPolicy analysisPoliticsBusinessDistribution (mathematics)Public administrationEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assessing the policy analytical capacity (PAC) of governments has suffered in the past from the anecdotal nature of most studies, leading to different evaluations of specific analytical activities and of the overall competences and capacities of governments as a whole. What is needed to advance the field is a set of metrics that can generate insights into the capabilities of different units and how changes to their and overall government capacity develop over time. Focusing on this component of policy capacity, we map and measure the distribution of policy professionals in the provincial, territorial, and federal governments in Canada. Our measures are tested against two major findings regarding PAC: first that variation among governmental PAC varies by size of the civil service, with smaller jurisdictions likely to have less capacity, and second, that concentration of professionals in specific issue areas underscores that area's political and/or policy salience to the government concerned. Both measures prove robust in assessing Canadian government activities in these areas. Points for practitioners Policy capacity is acknowledged as a significant perquisite for policy success. While some general frameworks exist highlighting policy relevant competences and capabilities important to policy success, how to measure these remains under‐investigated. Focusing on policy analytical capacity, this paper draws on the literature on policy professionals to develop two measures of this component of policy capacity linked to the extent to which an agency focuses on analysis and the proportion of their staff who work on the subject compared to other agencies. The measures are deployed in an illustrative case of Canada and Canadian governments at the territorial, provincial, and federal level which confirms their utility and robustness as indicators of the different levels of analytical capacity different agencies employ.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0300.041
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Public AdministrationSame topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207