MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934185154 · doi:10.1111/pbaf.12069

Bottom‐Up Costing Within Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks: A Survey of Practices in Selected OECD Countries

2015· article· en· W1934185154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Di Francesco, Rafael Barroso

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Budgeting &amp Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentWorld Bank Group
KeywordsActivity-based costingGovernment (linguistics)BusinessTerm (time)Medium termCost accountingAccountingFinancePublic economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The public financial management literature stresses the importance of bottom‐up costing of budget programs within a medium term expenditure framework (MTEF), however, comparatively little attention is paid to its practical implementation. This paper helps close this gap by surveying MTEF costing practices in four countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, and the Netherlands. The research utilizes questionnaire responses and interview data from national finance ministries, as well as review of government policy documents. The paper finds that current program costing practices fall short of the declared objectives of MTEFs, and the focus of costing and cost information remains incremental budget decision processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Budgeting &amp FinanceSame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207