The American distortion of the ombudsman concept and its influence on Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The essence of the original ombudsman concept as embraced by the western democracies was the independence of the ombudsman from the administrative organization being complained against. This is achieved by having the office created by law and having the ombudsman appointed by the legislature and made its agent. But as adopted and expanded in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Canada, the concept has been distorted by extending it at first to embrace so‐called ombudsmen appointed by the heads of the departments or agencies being complained against, and then to the non‐profit and profit sectors of society through similar appointment by the heads of universities, hospitals, and business corporations for internal student, patient, and employee complaints. This article shows how this development has similarly influenced Canada, and concludes with recommendations designed to restore the original concept as the desired objective and thus once again make Canada a world leader in ombudsmanship. Sommaire: L'essence du concept initial de l'ombudsman, tel qu'adopté par les démocraties occidentales, a été l'indépendance de l'ombudsman par rapport à l'organisation administrative faisant l'objet de plaintes. Cela a été rendu possible par le fait que cette position fut créée par la loi et que l'ombudsman est nommé par l'assemblée législative qui en fait son agent. Mais le concept tel qu'adopté et développé aux États‐Unis, et dans une moindre mesure au Canada, a été déformé lorsqu'il a étéélargi tout d'abord pour inclure les soi‐disant ombudsmen nommés par les chefs de ministères ou d'agences faisant l'objet de plaintes, et ensuite les secteurs à but non lucratif et lucratif de la société par le biais de nominations similaires par des chefs d'universités, d'hôpitaux et d'entreprises en ce qui concerne les plaintes internes d'étudiants, de patients et d'employés. L'auteur montre comment cette évolution a influencé le Canada et conclut en faisant des recommandations visant à restaurer le concept initial comme l'objectif désiré, et à faire ainsi à nouveau du Canada un leader mondial en matière de protection du citoyen.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".