How Irish Higher EducationInstitutions can Organisethemselves to Unlock Research for Policy (Working Paper February 2024, No. 19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to explore how Irish higher education institutions can organise themselves to unlock the potential of research on policy-making. It describes work underway in Maynooth University, sets out the emergence of brokerage arrangements to support the impact of research on policy in a national policy context and explores some international research findings in relation to brokerage and related activities. It also identifies and seeks to describe some particular brokerage arrangements established by individual higher education institutions, as well as some established by a number of higher education institutions in partnership sometimes with Governments. The aim is to seek to support the emerging discussion about these issues. This paper is intended to be read in conjunction with two other pieces of work being advanced by the authors. Following a series of eight ‘open discussion meetings’ which were organised on a cross-disciplinary basis in Maynooth University (April to June 2023) to secure a better understanding, from the perspective of staff, of what Maynooth University might do next to help researchers unlock the full value of their work for public policy, they drafted a discussion paper to put some shape on and to place on the record the views which colleagues articulated during these meetings. This record was tested and further considered in two briefing and refinement meetings with the original participants and other interested colleagues, which took place September and October 2023, and it is planned to publish an updated paper in the near future. They are also finalising a related paper on how innovation and research for policy support each other.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads 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".