Whispering to the prince: academic experts and national security policy formulation in Brazil, South Africa and Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis posits three sets of factors governing academics' participation in security policy formulation processes at the national level. These are policymaker uncertainty attributes such as specialised knowledge, institutionalised prestige and specific forms of argumentation; and the normative resonance of experts' inputs with policymakers' expectations. The argument follows a triple progression: from structural to ideational factors; from the notion of value-free science to embrace of self-conscious policy advocacy; and a progression of types of input mirroring the advancement of the policy process. These claims were tested through extensive field research covering the policy processes in Brazil, South Africa and Canada over the last ten years. Situated at the confluence of several avenues of research, the investigation provides important insights into policy relevance, the relationship of theory and practice; the role of outside actors in policy processes, and the interplay between the normative and scientific commitments of social scientists.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it