MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411297491 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85554-2_4

Advocacy Coalitions ‘In Power’ and Major Policy Change in Canada: A Fuzzy Set Investigation

2025· book-chapter· en· W4411297491 on OpenAlexaffabout
B. Timothy Heinmiller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersUniversity of Oklahoma
KeywordsPower (physics)Set (abstract data type)Fuzzy logicPolitical sciencePublic administrationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract (Sievers and Jones in JAMA 2(1): 90-114, 2020) argue that theories of policy change must grapple with the concept of power and its role in policy-making. ACF policy change theory (PCT) addresses power most directly in its second hypothesis which posits a causal link between advocacy coalitions ‘in power in a jurisdiction’ and major policy change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207