Bibliographic record
Abstract
G. Bruce Doern is one of a handful of scholars who, beginning in the 1960s, pioneered the modern study of public policy in Canada.His abiding curiosity in unpacking the "black box" of policy processes within the state and understanding the interplay of ideas, interests and institutions in how policy is formed helped to lay the foundation for the serious study of public policy in Canada.It was also key to cementing the strong institutionalism that still characterizes Canadian approaches to the study of public policy and management.Professor Doern's rich description and critical analyses of so many different and varied policy fields, including budgeting, trade, environment, energy, regulation, competition and intellectual property, and science policy, have significantly deepened our understanding of how policy is actually made in these fields and how specific institutions operate.Bruce Doern always seemed to be ahead of the curve in his research, anticipating -and sometimes creating -the next big thing in the study of public policy.He was studying science policy, indeed it was the topic of his dissertation and first book in 1972, before most in the field recognized what science policy meant.In the early 1970s he provided the first sophisticated assessment of the role of the central agencies of government, and illuminated how both the political and bureaucratic dimensions of their work are essential to good democratic governance.His model of the continuum of governing instruments, first published in 1974 (with Vince Wilson, and in 1983 with Richard Phidd), marked the beginning of the study of policy instrument choice in the Canadian context, and Bruce elaborated upon the model and specific instruments in many successive
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.618 | 0.580 |
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".