International Public Management Network Symposium: "New Public Management Has Been Completely Discredited, Thank God!"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late February 2004, well-known and highly respected Canadian academic Donald Savoie was appointed to assist the Canadian government, "to help overhaul the management and accountability of government in the aftermath of [a] scandal." Among the remarks Savoie made to the press upon appointment was the following excerpt, "New public management has been completely discredited, thank God" (The Ottawa Citizen, 2/27/04). Savoie's comment and the article that carried it were brought to the attention of the IPMN community by Alasdair Roberts. The comment stimulated a dialogue about NPM on the IPMN listserver that is represented in this symposium, in roughly the order in which comments were transmitted, with only minor editing. The dialogue tells much about current views on the utility, or lack thereof, of New Public Management and how the maturation of NPM is perceived by the international community of scholars in the field of public management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.015 |
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".