COVID-19 Policy Response and the Rise\nof the Sub-National Governments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous examinons le rôle des gouvernements infranationaux et nationaux du Canada et des États-Unis dans l'adoption de mesures de protection de la santé publique au stade initial de la pandémie mondiale de COVID-19. Cette période a été caractérisée dans les deux pays par des informations incomplètes ainsi que par une incertitude quant à l'ordre de gouvernement responsable de telle ou telle politique. La crise offre l'occasion d'étudier comment les gouvernements nationaux et infranationaux relèvent ces défis politiques. Dans l'article qui suit, nous présentons un ensemble de données unique qui répertorie les décisions politiques des États américains et des provinces canadiennes en matière de protection, ainsi que celles des gouvernements fédéraux respectifs: l'indice de politique de protection (IPP). Nous comparons ensuite les États-Unis et le Canada selon plusieurs dimensions, notamment les valeurs absolues des niveaux infranationaux de l'IPP par rapport aux protections totales dont bénéficient les citoyens, la relation entre la « menace précoce » (mesurée selon les taux de mortalité à l'approche du début de la crise de santé publique) et l'évolution de l'IPP et, enfin, les origines institutionnelles–législatives des politiques de protection de la santé. Nous constatons que la contribution infranationale à la politique est plus importante pour les deux pays mais qu'elle n'est pas liée à notre mesure de la « menace précoce ». Nous démontrons également que l'origine institutionnelle des politiques diffère grandement entre les deux pays et que cela a des répercussions sur l'évolution du fédéralisme. Abstract: We examine the roles of sub-national and national governments in Canada and the United States vis-à-vis the protective public health response in the onset phase of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This period was characterized in both countries by incomplete information as well as by uncertainty regarding which level of government should be responsible for which policies. The crisis represents an opportunity to study how national and sub-national governments respond to such policy challenges. In this article, we present a unique dataset that catalogues the policy responses of US states and Canadian provinces as well as those of the respective federal governments: the Protective Policy Index (PPI). We then compare the United States and Canada along several dimensions, including the absolute values of subnational levels of the index relative to the total protections enjoyed by citizens, the relationship between early threat (as measured by the mortality rate near the start of the public health crisis) and the evolution of the PPI, and finally the institutional and legislative origins of the protective health policies. We find that the sub-national contribution to policy is more important for both the United States and Canada than are their national-level policies, and it is unrelated in scope to our early threat measure. We also show that the institutional origin of the policies as evidenced by the COVID-19 response differs greatly between the two countries and has implications for the evolution of federalism in each.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".