Building shared accountability into service transformation partnerships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governments at all levels in Canada have entered into partnerships with the industry to effect user-focused, cross-agency service integration and multichannel service delivery. This article examines the problem of developing shared accountability mechanisms for public-private service transformation partnerships, which satisfy the demands of new business relationships and traditional democratic governance values. It first explores the widening canvas of collaborative information technology-driven partnerships and then draws on the emerging shared accountability literature and practices to set out five conditions which should be met in the establishment of a shared accountability regime for such partnerships. These criteria statements are used to analyse the accountability provisions of a new partnership between Service BC (the lead service delivery entity for the British Columbia government) and a consortium led by IBM Canada. The most significant shortcoming would appear to be its very limited public dimension. The article ends with a discussion of how that problem might be addressed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it