13 Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreword Preface List of Tables, Figures, and Chapter Appendices Chapter 1: Why Study Commission of Inquiry - Gregory J. Inwood (Ryerson University, Politics and Public Administration) and Carolyn M. Johns (Ryerson University, Politics and Public Administration) Chapter 2: Theories of Policy Change and a Four Part Theoretical Framework for Comparative Analysis - Gregory J. Inwood and Carolyn M. Johns Chapter 3. Structuring Canada's National Policy Debate: The Royal Commission of Canada's Economic Prospects - Neil Bradford (Huron College, University of Western Ontario, Political Science) Chapter 4: Politics and Promise: A Feminist-Institutionalist Analysis of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women - Joan Grace (University of Winnipeg, Politics) Chapter 5: The Lasting Impact of the Inquiry into the Construction of a Pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley - Frances Abele (Carleton University, Public Policy and Administration) Chapter 6: Of Leaps of Faith and Policy Change: The Macdonald Royal Commission - Gregory J. Inwood Chapter 7: The Framing of Scientific Governance in Canada: Policy Change and the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies - Francesca Scala (Concordia University, Political Science) Chapter 8: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: An Exercise in Policy Education - Peter H. Russell (University of Toronto, Political Science) Chapter 9: Manufacturing Civil Society?: How the Krever Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada Shaped Collective Action and Policy Change - Michael Orsini (University of Ottawa, Political Science) Chapter 10: The Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada: Laying the Groundwork or a Missed Opportunity for Policy Change? - Patricia L. O'Reilly (Ryerson University, Politics and Public Administration) Chapter 11: The Walkerton Inquiry and Policy Change - Carolyn M. Johns Chapter 12: The Goudge Inquiry: Anatomy of Success for an Inquiry to Change Policy? - Lorne Sossin (Osgoode Hall Law School, Dean and Professor) Chapter 13: Commissions of Inquiry and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis - Gregory J. Inwood and Carolyn M. Johns Bibliography Contributors
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 | 0.021 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".