Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In January 1997, Ontario's Ministry of Community and Social Scrvices (Comsoc) entered into a public‐private partnership with Andersen Consulting. Thc business transformation project was intended to support the Ontario Works program and Ontario Disability Support program. The provincial auditor subsequently reviewed the project and identified a number of problems. This particular case illustrates some of the key issues associated with public‐private partnerships in Ontario, and perhaps more generally. The article examines the government's managerialist agenda and the twin goals of downsizing the Ontario Public Service while increasing the involvement of business in program delivery. Analysis focuses on how the Ontario government conceives of partnership arrangements; the issue of differences in organizational power between public and private actors; the question of whether shared interests need necessarily exist between the parties; and the problem of securing accountability in partnership arrangements. It finds that collaborative partncrships and democratic accountability are in tension; public‐sector organizations risk entering public‐private partnerships in subordinate roles; and that divergent public and private purposes hampered the project. Moreover, the article suggests that the ministry's eventual corrective actions embraced traditional public administrative concerns. This development indicates that while recent managerialist reforms havc posed some challenge to public administration, it shows continued relevance in protecting the public interest. Sommaire: En janvier 1997, le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires de l'Ontario a conch avec Andersen Consulting un partenariat entre secteurs public et privé. Le projet visait à appuyer le programme Ontario au travail et le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées. Le vérificateur provincial a, par la suite, passé en revue le projet et a identifié un certain nombre de problèmes. Ce cas particulier illustre certaines des questions clés associées aux partenariats entre le secteur public et le secteur privé en Ontario, et peut‐être dans un champ plus vaste. L'artio cle examine le programme de nouveau management public du gouvernement let les deux objectifs jumeaux consistant à réduire la taille de la Fonction publique de l'Ontario tout en augmentant le rôe du secteur privé dans la prestation des programmes. L'analyse se centre sur la manière dont le gouvernement de l'Ontario conçoit les contrats de partenariat; la question des différences en matière de pouvoir organisationnel entre les intervenants des secteurs public et privé; la question de savoir si les parties doivent nécessairement partager des intérêts communs; et le problème de la garantie de l'imputabilité dans les contrats de partenariat. L'article montre qu'il existe des tensions dans les partenariats de collaboration par rapport à la responsabilité démocratique, que les organismes du secteur public risquent de conclure avec le secteur privé des partenariats où ils joueront des rôles subordonnés et que les objectifs divergents des secteurs public et privé ont été une entrave au projet. Par ailleurs, l'article laisse entendre que les mesures correctives prises finalement par le ministère ont tenu compte des préoccupations traditionnelles de l'administration publique. Cela indique que même si les récentes réformes de gestion ont posé certains défis à l'administration publique, elles visent toujours la protection de l'intérêt public.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".