Accountability and governance: strengthening extra‐bureaucratic mechanisms in Bangladesh
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
Purpose This paper aims to examine accountability arrangements in Bangladesh and to identify strengths and weaknesses, as well as potentials for improvement. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on review and analysis of published documents and data and information obtained on field visits to Bangladesh. Findings The administrative system in Bangladesh is driven by complex rules and procedures with weak institutional support. Internal mechanisms of accountability in administrative organizations have become ineffective due to existing political, economic and social conditions. Therefore, the external mechanisms of accountability must be strengthened to ensure good governance in Bangladesh. Social implications A weak system of accountability renders the task of public management difficult and the establishment of good governance unattainable. Improvements in social conditions can be expected with the strengthening of accountability mechanisms. Originality/value The value of this paper lies in the identification of factors such as institutional disharmony, politicization and corruption as the most formidable barriers to accountability and good governance in Bangladesh. It presents a fresh analysis of the factors and points to the potentials for improvement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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