Development of Study of Public Policy in Europe : Czech study of Public Policy in European Context (Comparing the Cases of France, Germany and the Czech Republic)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of Public Policy Study in Europe : Czech Study of Public Policy in European Context (Comparing the Cases of France, Germany and the Czech Republic) PhD. thesisr: Vilém Novotný English abstract This PhD. thesis deals with an issue of study of public policy which is considered to be a specific subdiscipline of political sciences. The study of public policy encompasses all approaches that are engaged in research of public policy. In the issue of public policy study is attention focused, in explorative way, on development of public policy study. This aim is pursued from moderate constructivist positions at two levels. At the first, theoretical, level, it is interested in question how to study the development of public policy study. It attempts to formulate general analytical frame which could be used as a comparative grid as well. Its main reference framework is represented by Peter deLeon's model of advice and consent (supply and demand model) (deLeon, 1988) and model devised for an analysis of Canadian political science development by John Trent and Michael Stein (Trent, 1987; Trent, Stein, 2002; Stein, 1998). The analytical frame is designed under assumption of interaction between the subdiscipline and its national and international environment. In the concrete case it deals with mutual...
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".