MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059275910 · doi:10.1111/1467-9302.00314

Executive Agencies, Performance Targets and External Reporting

2002· article· en· W2059275910 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

VenuePublic Money & Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityBusinessAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Process managementKey (lock)AccountingService delivery frameworkPublic relationsService (business)Focus (optics)MarketingPolitical scienceComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1988, the role of Next Steps executive agencies has been crucial in delivering central government services. Agencies were established to improve service delivery, with changes being supported by an increasing focus on quantification. The Government argued that performance measures and targets are vital in supporting management in planning and controlling the operation of an agency, and that they are also important in providing a basis for reporting to those outside its immediate management—an aspect of discharging accountability. This article discusses the connections between targeting and reporting performance in agencies and, through an empirical study of business plans, corporate plans and annual reports, shows the extent of such linkages. The article provides evidence that key targets in planning documents of agencies provide a useful platform for external reporting, although improvements can still be made.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.232 · 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