Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Reflecting on personal experiences with three royal commissions into the public service of Canada – spanning nearly half a century – the author highlights the varied procedures and contributions of the Royal (Glassco) Commission on Government Organization, the Royal (Lambert) Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, and the (Gomery) Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Phase 2. As editorial director for the Glassco Commission, he shepherded twenty‐one reports in six volumes to publication, while witnessing the impact of the advent of the management consultancy profession on reforms for the public service. As a member of the Lambert Commission, he observed that the strong emphasis on management was ameliorated by the addition of Parliament's role in preserving responsibility, thereby closing the accountability loop left dangling by Glassco. This commission gave rise to a new word –“accountability”– and the stage was set for a continuous debate on its meaning, which came to a head with the Gomery Commission. The advisory committee for Phase 2 of that inquiry, of which he was a member, sought to help the commissioner with his recommendations for preventing a recurrence of the scandals that had been investigated in Phase 1. Here the focus was on accountability, and it is on the current dispute over “ownership” of its definition and application that these recollections conclude. Sommaire: Se basant sur les expériences personnelles qu'il a tirées de trois commissions royales sur la fonction publique du Canada – qui se sont déroulées sur près d'un demi‐siécle – l'auteur souligne les différentes procédures et contributions de la Commission royale (Glassco) sur l'organisation du gouvernement; de la Commission royale (Lambert) sur la gestion financière et l'imputabilité; et de la Commission d'enquête (Gomery) sur le programme de commandites et les activités publicitaires, phase II. En tant que directeur de la rédaction pour la Commission Glassco, il a dirigé la publication de vingt‐et‐un rapports en six volumes, tout en étant témoin de l'impact de l'avènement de la profession de conseiller en gestion sur les réformes de la fonction publique. À titre de membre de la Commission Lambert, il a noté que la grande importance accordée à la gestion a été rehaussée par l'ajout du rôle du Parlement dans la préservation de la responsabilité, mettant ainsi fin à la voie de contournement de l'imputabilité que la Commission Glassco n'avait pas résolue. Cette dernière Commission a introduit un nouveau terme, « l'imputabilité», et a préparé la voie au débat conrinu sur la signification de ce terme, débat qui est devenu critique avec la Commission Gomery. Le comité consultatif de la phase II de cette enquête, dont l'auteur de l'article était membre, a cherchéà aider le commissaire en faisant des recommandations pour éviter le genre de scandales qui ont fait l'objet de l'enquête de la phase I. Le présent article porte sur l'imputabilité et, en conclusion, l'auteur porte ses réflexions sur le conflit actuel au sujet de « l'appartenance » de la définition de ce concept et de son application.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".