Is research the new advocacy? Mobilising social science research through ‘solutions-focused advocacy’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advocacy coalitions have played an increasingly critical role in evidence-based policy development. Despite this, little is known about how such coalitions leverage research to influence policy. Addressing this gap, this qualitative study explores how a multi-sectoral advocacy coalition seeks to shape Canadian food security policy through ‘solutions-focused advocacy’. We explore four of the coalition’s strategies: (1) shaping policymakers’ thinking and priorities while responding to governments’ needs; (2) utilising research to help governments achieve political ‘wins’ while advancing the cause; (3) using research to broker relationships between ‘community’, government, and the coalition; and (4) mobilising research to ‘bring the sector along’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.140 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.108 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".