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
Purpose This paper examines the actual and desired use of performance measures for management and external reporting purposes, as well as perceived impediments to their effective use. Design/methodology/approach A total of 334 senior administrators in Canadian municipalities participated in this survey study. Findings Somewhat more efficiency measures than effectiveness measures have been used for various purposes. However, greater use was perceived desirable than actually occurred, particularly for effectiveness measures. A significant increase in the use was expected in the near future especially for effectiveness measures. Internal and external verification of measures was considered important by both internal and external auditors. Although the study also identified impediments to the development and meaningful use of performance measures, performance measurement appears to have been accepted as a useful managerial tool and have significant future potential. Research limitations/implications The results are limited by the survey method. Practical implications The results can provide guidance to public‐sector administrators and professionals for planning and decision making purposes and to professional bodies and regulatory agencies for developing comparative performance reporting standards. Originality/value Using the descriptive and normative perspectives, this study provides new evidence in the Canadian context. It concludes that, although the mandatory performance measurement and reporting requirements for municipalities in Canada lag those in the UK, the USA, and Australia, a significant degree of usage occurred voluntary in Canadian municipalities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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