Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Starting in the 1980s, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom faced serious economic problems, such as economies dominated by government spending and high budget deficits. Further, government studies in the four countries found that government organizations lacked accountability for achieving program results and that there were many constraints to increasing such accountability. In response to these problems, each of the countries embarked on comprehensive reforms intended to increase the accountability of the civil service for the effective and efficient management of government programs. In exchange for increased accountability for results, the countries provided program managers with more flexibility in their use of resources. The studies and subsequent reforms in these four countries proposed results-oriented management reforms that were subsequently adopted in the United States (U.S.). The approaches these countries took to implement results-oriented management reforms included departments and agencies establishing and communicating a clear direction by defining their missions and goals through strategic planning, establishing annual objectives that were directly linked to missions and goals, measuring performance to assess how well objectives were being met, and reporting on progress. The countries derived a number of key lessons from their experiences in developing performance measurement systems. These lessons focused on enhancing the usefulness of performance information to management for improving program results. The countries sought to reinforce this focus on results by holding agency management accountable for the results that agencies were trying to achieve. For example, the countries used performance agreements between different levels of management to ensure accountability for achieving agreed-upon performance goals. Cunningham and Harris (2005) discuss how performance reporting has been implemented in Canada, the United Kingdom, and three states in the United States. This article discusses how performance-reporting requirements in the U.S. are intended to promote a results-oriented management and decision-making process within Congress and the executive branch, as well as accountability to the American public, specifically for digital government programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».