MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring the impact of value‐for‐money audits: a model for surveying audited managers

2004· article· en· W1984304695 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

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditValue for moneyAccountingValue (mathematics)Political sciencePublic relationsBusinessManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The practice of value‐for‐money legislative audits was conceived to improve the management of public programs by making it more economical, more effective, and more efficient. To what extent have auditors general achieved this objective in the past twenty‐five years since the inception of the value‐for‐money audit (VFMA)? The literature on VFMA has been silent on its actual impact on public administrations. This article examines the impact VFMAS have had on the management of organizations in the government of Quebec based on a new survey model of inquiry. Of the variables measured were the value VFMAS bring to the organizations audited; the relevance of the recommendations formulated by the auditors; the deterrent of potential audits on public‐sector managers; the changes that occurred in the audited organization's management practices and in its relations with its stakeholders; the ways in which the auditors' report has been useful to the auditees; the concrete actions taken following VFMAS; and, finally, the organizational and personal consequences of the audits. Sommaire: La vérification législative de l'optimisation des ressources (VOR) est une pratique qui a été conçue pour améliorer la gestion des programmes publics en la rendant plus économique, plus efficace et plus efficiente. Dans quelle mesure les Vérificateurs généraux ont‐ils atteint cet objectif au cours des vingt‐cinq années qui ont suivi l'avènement de cette pratique? La recherche sur la VOR a passé sous silence l'impact réel de cette pratique sur les administrations publiques. Le présent article examine l'impact des VOR sur le managerisme des organismes du gouvernement du Québec d'après un nouveau modèle d'enquête. Les variables mesurées étaient les suivantes:la valeur que les VOR apportent aux organismes vérifiés; la pertinence des recommandations formulées par les vérificateurs; l'effet dissuasif de vérifications potentielles sur les gestionnaires du secteur public; les changements intervenus dans les pratiques de gestion de l'organisme vérifié et dans ses relations avec ses parties prenantes; la manière dont le rapport des vérificateurs a été utile aux entités vérifiécs; les mesures concrètes prises à la suite des VOK; et enfin, Ics conséquences organisationnelles et personnelles des vérifications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.192 · 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