Public Private Partnerships and the Public Interest: A Case Study of Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTPublic private partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly advocated as beneficial for the delivery of public services, facilities, and infrastructure for municipal governments. However, such partnerships often raise serious concerns about transparency and accountability. While municipal governments across Canada have tried to increase public participation in local affairs, PPPs can impede such efforts. This article presents a case study of the Lansdowne Park PPP redevelopment in the City of Ottawa. We focus on how transparency and citizen engagement have been compromised and circumvented and link to broader issues of how to balance the privileged status of business and the demands for commercial confidentiality with the public interest, transparency, and citizen engagement in projects that use PPPs. The article concludes by arguing that some projects and some conditions can render the use of PPPs inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of both effectiveness and the basic principles of good governance.RÉSUMÉLes partenariats public-privé (PPP) sont de plus en plus préconisés par les municipalités comme étant une solution avantageuse pour la prestation de services publics ainsi que la réalisation de projets d’installations et d’infrastructures publiques. Toutefois, de tels partenariats soulèvent souvent d’importantes préoccupations quant à la transparence et la reddition de compte en lien avec ce processus. Plusieurs municipalités canadiennes ont fait de grands progrès pour accroître la participation des citoyens aux affaires municipales, mais les PPP peuvent représenter un obstacle important à de tels efforts. Cet article présente une étude de cas sur le réaménagement du parc Lansdowne dans le cadre d’un PPP à la Ville d’Ottawa. L’article se concentre sur la façon dont la transparence et l’engagement des citoyens ont été compromis et contournés dans ce processus. Cette analyse est liée à des considérations sur la façon d’atteindre un équilibre entre le statut privilégié de l’entreprise et les exigences de confidentialité des informations commerciales avec l’intérêt public, la transparence et l’engagement des citoyens dans des projets qui utilisent des PPP. L’article conclut en affirmant que certains projets et certaines conditions peuvent rendre certains PPP inappropriés et contre productifs en ce qui a trait à l’efficacité et aux principes fondamentaux de bonne gouvernance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it