MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964580692 · doi:10.1177/0275074004272622

How Much Decentralization?

2005· article· en· W1964580692 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Public Administration · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyRestructuringDecentralizationStaffingBusinessUnit (ring theory)Middle managementGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Quality (philosophy)Human resourcesPublic relationsMarketingEconomicsFinancePolitical sciencePsychologyManagementMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the extent of managerial autonomy middle managers in Canadian governments report in financial and human resources management areas. It analyzes whether during a period of intense government restructuring middle managers’ autonomy has increased or not and whether there are any environmental or structural factors that could explain the variation in the extent of managerial autonomy reported by them. Managers reported the most autonomy regarding quality and client consultation issues and relatively high levels of autonomy for performance management, training and development, and staffing decisions. The extent of perceived managerial autonomy was found to be statistically significantly related to being a manager of a work unit in the periphery, managing a small unit, leading a corporate unit, and having greater emphasis on results.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.357 · 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