MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388146375 · doi:10.24124/c677/20211829

Discursive Black and Translucent Box Frames of Policy Work: How do Practitioners and Scholars Compare?

2022· article· en· W4388146375 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bobby Thomas Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyCivil servantsPolitical scienceNarrativeGovernment (linguistics)Public policySociologyPublic administrationHumanitiesLawArtPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractPolicy work in government is often framed as existing in a “black box”. It is assumed that public administrators, as “insiders”, have more knowledge of policy development processes than those outside of government. Are black box narratives of policy work constructed by practitioners? Or is the idea of a “translucent” box more appropriate to understand policy work within the bureaucracy? Based on interviews with sub-national civil servants in one provincial government in Canada, this article finds that black box narratives are used by practitioners to understand policy work. I interpret these results to argue that a theory-practice gap does not necessarily exist when it comes to constructions of policy work: practitioners in the field, like scholars, employ black box narratives to frame policy work in the bureaucracy. Yet, academics may still find that translucent box theory provides a more nuanced way of understanding government’s internal policy processes.RésuméLe travail politique au sein du gouvernement est souvent présenté comme existant dans une « boîte noire». On suppose que les administrateurs publics, en tant qu’ « initiés », ont une meilleure connaissance des processus d'élaboration des politiques que ceux qui ne font pas partie du gouvernement. Les récits en boîte noire du travail politique sont-ils construits par les praticiens ? Ou l'idée d'une boîte « translucide » est-elle plus appropriée pour comprendre le travail politique au sein de la bureaucratie ? Sur la base d'entretiens avec des fonctionnaires infranationaux d'un gouvernement provincial au Canada, cet article constate que les récits de la boîte noire sont utilisés par les praticiens pour comprendre le travail politique. J'interprète ces résultats pour soutenir qu'un fossé théorie-pratique n'existe pas nécessairement lorsqu'il s'agit de constructions de travail politique : les praticiens sur le terrain, comme les universitaires, utilisent des récits de boîte noire pour encadrer le travail politique dans la bureaucratie. Pourtant, les universitaires peuvent toujours trouver que la théorie de la boîte translucide offre une manière plus nuancée de comprendre les processus politiques internes du gouvernement.Key Words: Black Box Theory, Qualitative Semi-Structured Interviews, Social Constructivist Coding, Prince Edward Island Civil Servants, Policy CapacityMots-clés : Théorie de la boîte noire, entretiens qualitatifs semi-structurés, codage constructiviste social, fonctionnaires de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, capacité des politiques

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.350 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207