MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309757283 · doi:10.1111/capa.12501

Policy shops, hired guns, and gatekeepers: The organization and distribution of policy analysts in Ontario

2022· article· en· W4309757283 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Migone, Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingDistribution (mathematics)Order (exchange)Work (physics)Government (linguistics)PoliticsPublic policyPublic relationsBusinessOrganizational structureService (business)Public administrationPolitical scienceMarketingEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Policy professionals play an important role in political and administrative systems. However, the exact configuration and distribution of such personnel within agencies remains largely unknown. Early works noted the creation of small dedicated “policy shops” in many governments after 1960 where many policy professionals were located. Studies in Canada and elsewhere subsequently confirmed this organizational form but questions such as how many professionals are employed and where these units are located within existing departmental structures remain opaque. In this article, we provide an organizational mapping of professional policy personnel in the Ontario Public Service (OPS). We find that four major personnel distribution patterns exist within the OPS with only some analysts and professionals working in “classical” policy shops. These findings underscore the need to re‐evaluate the organization and staffing of professional policy analysts in government in order to better account for the kinds of work policy professionals do in modern administrations.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207