MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044512422 · doi:10.1111/1468-0408.00123

Influence of Value for Money Audit on Public Administrations: Looking Beyond Appearances

2001· article· en· W2044512422 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Accountability and Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policies and Political Economy
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditAccountingBusinessValue (mathematics)Control (management)Value for moneyOrder (exchange)FinanceEconomicsPublic economicsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value for money (VFM) auditing will soon have been part of the control environment in European and North American public administrations for thirty years, yet, despite its many interesting features, it has received very little attention from researchers. Chief among the VFM audit'sstill unexplored features, would doubtless be the value of its performance as an instrument to control and improve the management of public affairs. In order to partially fill this research gap, I am proposing 14 indicators to measure the effectiveness of VFM audits. But I don't stop there, for pointing out the successes or failures of VFM audits would finally be futile unless one also pointed to their causes. So, turning my attention to causes, I also propose 11 factors which can be used to explain the successes of Auditors General in carrying out VFM audits of public organizations as well as their inevitable failures.

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 score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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