An analysis of changes in stakeholder accountability among Canadian WCBs: 1998–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Many essential public services in Canada have been delegated to agencies. The semi‐autonomous nature of these agencies, often operating at arm's‐length from government, leads to difficulties in holding them sufficiently accountable. Of the many public‐sector agencies in Canada, workers' compensation boards (WCBs) are arguably the most autonomous in comparison to other government agencies such as health care and social services. In their article, derived from an earlier background paper written in 1998, Therese Jennissen, Michael Prince and Saul Schwartz (2000) called for increased WCB accountability to elected officials. The aim of the current article is, first, to conduct a document review to determine the extent to which the recommendations made by Jennissen and her colleagues have been adopted at the national level and, secondly, through a case study, to examine the implications of these changes at the Newfoundland Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, where many of the recommendations have been implemented.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".