Multi-level governance framework and its applicability to education policy research - the Canadian perspective
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education policies are increasingly characterized as complex and dynamic, involving a multitude of actors and policy networks. As a result, there is a growing demand in education for research approaches that can help make sense of this complexity. This paper examines the applicability of multi-level governance (MLG) framework as a tool of education research from Canada’s decentralized federalist perspective. By conducting a comprehensive literature review of 50 peer-reviewed journal articles, we determine the applicability of MLG framework, the conditions necessary for its use, and its overall relevance to education policy, which is increasingly characterized by the involvement of a variety of stakeholder groups across government levels and policy sectors. The key findings are presented following Bowe et al.’s (1992) policy cycle framework. We conclude that MLG approach is a strong tool for education research to analyze policy making in federal decentralized educational systems, as it allows a more nuanced perspective for understanding the multilayered policy dynamics often unfolding in the context of federalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it