MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advocacy coalitions, power and policy change

2023· article· en· W4313537609 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy & Politics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatus quoVetoJurisdictionScholarshipPower (physics)Political scienceLaw and economicsCausality (physics)Public administrationPublic economicsPublic relationsPositive economicsSociologyEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines one of the causal concepts in the second advocacy coalition framework (ACF) policy change hypothesis: the notion that major policy change will not occur as long as the advocacy coalition that instated the policy status quo remains ‘in power’ in a jurisdiction. It examines the role of this causal concept in ACF theory. It then reviews existing scholarship on the causal concept, identifying relevant empirical evidence and critically examining how the concept has been operationalised. A standard operationalisation is proposed, defining status quo advocacy coalitions as ‘in power’ if they control a veto player in a jurisdiction’s policy process. Changes in Canadian firearms policy between 1976 and 2012 are used to illustrate the operationalisation and explore its potential.

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)0.001
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 score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.334 · 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