Avaliação de Políticas Públicas: Um Estudo Bibliométrico Da Literatura Internacional Entre 1997 A 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to carry out a bibliometric analysis of the international literature on public policy evaluation in the last 25 years, in order to map the scientific field of production in the period. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis was performed in the Web of Science database and the selected articles were indexed in the VOSviewer software, to build and visualize bibliometric maps through graphical representation. The results demonstrate that the theme is clearly growing. In the period, 485 articles were found published in the researched base. The largest academic production is in the United States, followed by England, Australia and Canada. Regarding the keywords, there was a superiority of theories on public policy, evaluation and governance. The biggest publications are in the areas of public administration, interdisciplinary social sciences and political science. Therefore, the methodological care generated reliable and coherent information about the state of the art on the subject outside Brazil.
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 | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.177 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".