What’s The Evidence on Evidence-based Policy? Reflections on Knowledge Mobilization in Provincial Rural Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governments across Canada struggle to develop and implement robust, flexible, and effective rural policies and programs to meet the ever-changing contexts of rural communities. Critical to understanding how policymakers are addressing this challenge as they design, implement and/or evaluate rural policy and programming is examining if and how they use research evidence – and what kind of evidence – they use to inform this process. Through interviews with policy makers across Canada, this project investigates knowledge mobilization processes and relationships between academic research and the public policy process for rural policy decision makers. This PechaKucha style presentation will challenge the audience to consider the challenges that our current frameworks for policy-making pose for effective knowledge mobilization - and opportunities for reconsidering what we mean when we talk about evidence-based rural policy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.253 | 0.332 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.065 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".