MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413907963 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2025.2543984

AI in a Comparative Perspective: Linking Policy Formulation and Implementation

2025· article· en· W4413907963 on OpenAlex

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 · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)SociologyEpistemologyRegional sciencePolitical sciencePositive economicsEconomicsComputer sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the relationships between national artificial intelligence (AI), policy formulations (frames), and implementations (practices) across 27 countries. Using the structural topic modeling (STM) and frame analysis, it identifies three key policy frames: harnessing the potential of AI, capacity-building, and fostering AI governance. Trend analysis unveils shifting policy priorities, a declining emphasis on exploiting the potential of AI, and a growing focus on governance of AI, while the capacity-building frame remains consistent. This study further explores how the prevalence of these biometric frames correlate with national economic performance in the AI sector and progress in AI research and development.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.432 · 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