Understanding HR in the Morality Construction of Policy Analysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BRIEF SUMMARY: This study traces the influence of the Government of Canada’s human resources management system, as a form of organizational discourse, in how policy practice is constructed in a moral form within the institutional setting. The study aims to move beyond the conceptual and theoretical models of policy analysis present in the current literature to explore what policy ‘work’ entails in practice. RESEARCH QUESTION: How has organizational discourse, through the use of human resources management instruments, led to an institutional morality construction of the work of policy analysts within the Canadian civil service? THEORETICAL APPROACH: The study views the emergence of the policy analysis function as a response to early twentieth century modernization and rationalization reforms undertaken by western public administrations. By using Foucauldian perspectives on the exercise of power through the use of discourse, the study maps out how the Government of Canada used discursive instruments to instill particular values and behaviors on the manifestation of policy work by civil servants. METHODOLOGY: The study proposes the use of critical discourse analysis to study human resource management instruments, namely recruitment material, where written language is used to delineate an occupational jurisdiction for policy workers. The analysis of these texts will be used to formulate a morality for how policy analysis ‘work’ is ought to be practiced by policy analyst practitioners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".