Interest Groups and Policy Networks: The Influence of Canadian Scholarship in the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past ten years, at least three articles were published on the Canadian contribution to the literature on interest groups and policy networks (Pross, 1996; Haddow, 1999; Philips, 2004). Haddow and Philips agree that Canadian political scientists were awakened to the importance of interest groups by Paul Pross, who believed there was something for Canada in American pluralism despite the distinctiveness of Canadian institutions. Both authors also agree that tremendous progress since the publication of the work of Paul Pross was achieved in understanding the role of interest groups in Canadian politics, notably in the idea that interest groups interact with the state in policy networks. More significantly, however, both also suggest theoretical progress in the Canadian literature whose relevance reach far beyond Canada. The idea behind this article is not to propose yet another reading of the Canadian literature on interest groups and policy networks, but rather to examine its importance in international scholarship. In other words, I ask whether this literature informs Canadian politics only or whether it has theoretical relevance for international scholars interested in comparative public policy. To answer this question, I rely extensively on data available in the Social Science
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 | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".