Stakeholder responses to government austerity: what happens when strong stakeholders fail to react?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using stakeholder theory and a historical case study, I examine how key stakeholders failed to challenge the Alberta provincial government’s fiscal reforms, leading to the emergence of an unlikely champion in the Calgary hospital laundry workers. Notwithstanding that several prominent and powerful professional groups had the opportunity to oppose the government’s reforms, these groups either acquiesced or sought compromise individually with the government. This case calls into question the professions’ ability to protect public institutions under their domain. Points for practitioners In terms of potential implications for public administrators, this case provides an example of professional failure to intercede in the public interest, despite having the power and legitimacy to act according to stakeholder theory. This raises questions as to the circumstances under which professional groups will exercise their advocacy role. Unaddressed are the conditions under which relatively powerless demanding stakeholders can acquire power and legitimacy. Accordingly, administrators ‘relying’ upon established stakeholders as barometers of public opinion may misread public sentiment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".