MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405257065 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2024.2426878

Subnational Comparative Policy Analysis: Institutions, Methodology, and Research Agenda

2024· article· en· W4405257065 on OpenAlex
Daniel Béland, Patrik Marier, Mireille Paquet

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePublic administrationRegional sciencePublic economicsSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative policy analysis remains dominated by comparisons between countries that focus on the national rather than the subnational level. Yet, it is clear that much can be learned by comparing subnational units within and between countries, and comparative policy analysis scholarship focusing on the subnational level is clearly expanding, even if challenges remain. In this introductory article, we discuss the nature of Subnational Comparative Policy Analysis (SCPA) and we raise key institutional and methodological points that scholars in this area could find useful for their own comparative subnational policy research. This discussion leads to an overview of the present special issue and a brief agenda for future research in SCPA.

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 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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.716
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.042 · 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