MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976327830 · doi:10.4018/jegr.2005010103

Service, Security, Transparency & Trust

2005· article· en· W1976327830 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Scope (computer science)InterdependenceGovernment (linguistics)Conceptual frameworkCorporate governancePublic sectorSketchPublic relationsPublic administrationBusinessOrder (exchange)Thematic analysisPolitical scienceSociologyFinanceQualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this article are twofold: first, to examine the main conceptual dimensions of electronic government (e-government); and secondly, to critically assess both the current responses and future prospects of Canada’s public sector. The first sections of the paper are primarily conceptual as they delve into e-government’s meaning and scope by presenting a set of major thematic challenges driving public sector reform. The paper then provides a critical assessment of recent reforms and new initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada. Building on this analysis, the article aims to sketch out the major issues and challenges likely to confront Canadian governance. Of particular interest is whether or not a sufficient balance exists in focusing on dimensions of e-government and e-governance in order to adapt effectively to a more informational, digital, and interdependent world.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.362 · 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