The Problem of Institutional Fit: Uncovering Patterns with Boosted Decision Trees
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex social-ecological contexts play an important role in shaping the types of institutions that groups use to manage resources, and the effectiveness of those institutions in achieving social and environmental objectives. However, despite widespread acknowledgment that “context matters”, progress in generalising how complex contexts shape institutions and outcomes has been slow. This is partly because large numbers of potentially influential variables and non-linearities confound traditional statistical methods. Here we use boosted decision trees – one of a growing portfolio of machine learning tools – to examine relationships between contexts, institutions, and their performance. More specifically we draw upon data from the International Forest Resources and Institutions (IFRI) program to analyze (i) the contexts in which groups successfully self-organize to develop rules for the use of forest resources (local rulemaking), and (ii) the contexts in which local rulemaking is associated with successful ecological outcomes. The results reveal an unfortunate divergence between the contexts in which local rulemaking tends to be found and the contexts in which it contributes to successful outcomes. These findings and our overall approach present a potentially fruitful opportunity to further advance theories of institutional fit and inform the development of policies and practices tailored to different contexts and desired outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it