MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390822608 · doi:10.1086/729447

Bottlenecks for Evidence Adoption

2024· article· en· W4390822608 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefano DellaVigna, Elizabeth Linos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Political Economy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of PennsylvaniaNational Institute on AgingUniversità BocconiAarhus UniversitetNorthwestern UniversityHarvard UniversityQueen's University
KeywordsDownloadPolitical sciencePoliticsLibrary scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsLawComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governments increasingly use RCTs to test innovations, yet we know little about how they incorporate results into policy-making. We study 30 U.S. cities that ran 73 RCTs with a national Nudge Unit. Cities adopt a nudge treatment into their communications in 27% of the cases. We find that the strength of the evidence and key city features do not strongly predict adoption; instead, the largest predictor is whether the RCT was implemented using pre-existing communication, as opposed to new communication. We identify organizational inertia as a leading explanation: changes to pre-existing infrastructure are more naturally folded into subsequent processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.365
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.616
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3650.616
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0220.031
Open science0.0070.017
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.005

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Political EconomySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207