Positioning Ontario’s Character Development Initiative In/Through Its Policy Web of Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing a policy web of relationships is proposed as a useful way to identify and understand complex relationships between policies and their contexts. In Canada, the province of Ontario's Character Development Initiative (CDI) and its relationships to student achievement, citizenship education, and safe schools policies provide an illustrative example of the web’s utility. Mandated by the Ontario Ministry of Education, the Character Development Initiative was expected to be implemented by all publicly funded school boards during the 2007-2008 school year. This application of the policy web shows how what happens in one policy affects what happens in another and highlights relationships between policies that might be overlooked if one’s focus is limited to a single policy’s texts, practices, or influences alone. This example also shows how creating a policy web of relationships highlights issues, texts, practices, and ideas important across different policy fields and how a particular policy is positioned in relation to other policies. This knowledge may be used to support, resist, or influence policy at different levels. Mapping the relationships between policies using a web of relationships also provides historical understanding of the policies and knowledge about why policies (re)emerge at particular moments. La création d'un réseau de relations portant sur les politiques est évoquée comme façon utile d'identifier et de comprendre les rapports complexes entre les politiques et leurs contextes. Au Canada, l'initiative ontarienne nommée Initiative de développement du caractère, et ses liens avec le rendement des élèves, l'éducation à la citoyenneté et les politiques sur la sécurité à l'école, offre un exemple de l'utilité d'un tel réseau. On s'attendait à ce que l'initiative de développement du caractère, mandatée par le Ministère de l'éducation de l'Ontario, soit mise en œuvre par toutes les écoles publiques pendant l'année scolaire 2007-2008. Cette application de réseau de politiques démontre dans quelle mesure un changement dans une politique affecte l'évolution d'une autre, et fait ressortir des liens entre les politiques dont on ne tiendrait pas compte si on limitait notre attention aux textes, pratiques ou influences d'une seule politique. De plus, cet exemple illustre la façon dont un réseau de politiques fait ressortir d'une part, l'importance de questions, textes, pratiques et idées d'un domaine à l'autre et d'autre part, la position d'une politique par rapport aux autres. Ces connaissances peuvent servir à appuyer, rejeter ou influencer les politiques à divers niveaux. Un réseau de relations entre les politiques offre également un aperçu historique de celles-ci et une explication de leur émergence à des moments donnés.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".