Comparison of Canadian master's programs in public administration, public management and public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Sixteen Canadian master's programs of public administration, management and policy were compared in terms of institutional location, admission and degree requirements and compulsory curriculum. Only basic programs were included; joint degrees or specialized programs in specialized fields (like international or development administration) were omitted because they make comparison extremely difficult. Even the programs retained vary greatly in duration and content. Certain clusters of orientation and emphasis are evident. In comparison with the curriculum standards of the American National Association of Schools and Programs of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA), Canadian schools tend to emphasize policy at the expense of management. Sommaire: Seize programmes canadiens de maitrise en administration, gestion et politiques publiques ont été comparés selon leur situation institutionnelle, leurs conditions d'admission et d'obtention de diplôme ainsi que de curriculum obliga‐toire. Seuls les programmes de base ont été retenus, les doubles diplômes ou les programmes spécialisés ‐ tels que l'administration internationale ou de développement ‐ ont étéécartés en raison des difficultés de comparaison. Même les programmes retenus varient beaucoup dans leur durée et leur contenu. Certains regroupements d'orientation et de spécialisation sont évidents. Comparés aux standards de cursus de I'Association nationale américaine des écoles d'affaires et d'administration publiques (NASPAA), les programmes canadiens tendent à privilégier l'analyse de politiques aux dépens du management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".