Academic policy engagement, the structured processes through which researchers contribute evidence and expertise to public decision-making, is shaped not only by research quality but by the accessibility of engagement opportunities. In practice, these opportunities are fragmented across institutions and platforms, unevenly advertised, and difficult to discover systematically (Parker et al., 2022), limiting both individual participation and comparison. We present Overton Engage (https://app.overton.io/ui/opportunities), a structured database of publicly documented academic policy engagement opportunities, together with a semantic matching system that links opportunities to researchers based on similarity between opportunity descriptions and publication records. We characterise the composition of the database across policy domains, countries, and opportunity types, and present UK-focused analyses comparing engagement opportunity topics with published policy documents. We further demonstrate an illustrative comparison of consultation topics between the UK and Australia, and apply a matching system to assess how closely research produced by UK higher education institutions aligns, topically, with domestic policy opportunities. Our results suggest that publicly documented engagement opportunities are unevenly distributed across policy domains and countries, though this may reflect collection bias. Matching analyses reveal a positive relationship between institutional publication volume and high-confidence match rates, but also that research specialisation can compensate for lower output volume in specific policy domains. The database itself is freely available and we welcome collaboration from researchers, policymakers, and institutions.

翻译：学术政策参与——即研究者通过结构化流程为公共决策提供证据和专业知识的过程——不仅受研究质量影响，还取决于参与机会的可获取性。实际上，这些机会分散于不同机构与平台，宣传不均且难以系统发现（Parker等人，2022年），从而限制了个体参与和比较研究。我们提出Overton Engage（https://app.overton.io/ui/opportunities）——一个包含公开记录的学术政策参与机会的结构化数据库，以及一个基于机会描述与出版记录相似性将机会与研究者链接的语义匹配系统。我们对该数据库在政策领域、国家和机会类型上的构成进行特征描述，并呈现聚焦英国的分析，比较参与机会主题与已出版政策文件。我们进一步演示了英国与澳大利亚咨询议题的对比分析，并应用匹配系统评估英国高等教育机构的研究产出在主题上与国内政策机会的匹配程度。结果表明，公开记录的参与机会在政策领域和国家间分布不均，尽管这可能反映收集偏差。匹配分析揭示机构出版量规模与高置信度匹配率之间存在正相关，但研究专业化可补偿特定政策领域较低产出量的不足。该数据库本身免费开放，我们欢迎研究者、政策制定者和机构开展合作。