Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article looks at public accounts committees (PACS) in Canadian legislatures and their relationship with legislative auditors. In most jurisdictions, there is a close relationship between the two, as PACS base their agenda on auditors' reports and interact significantly with auditors. The chief role of the committees is to provide a unique and important public forum for the further exploration of issues identified by auditors. Their effectiveness is thus not necessarily in their written reports as much as it is in their hearings and examinations of witnesses. While some committees are clearly stronger than others, for a variety of reasons, they are all potentially powerful. It is up to legislatures, governments, legislative auditors, and committees themselves to make use of PACS unique capabilities Sommaire: Le présent article se penche sur les comités des comptes publics (CCP) dans les législatures canadiennes et leurs relations avec les vérificateurs législatifs. Dans la plupart des juridictions des provinces et territoires, il existe une relation étroite entre les deux, étant donné que les CCP fondent leur agenda sur les rapports des vérificateurs et sont en dialogue constant avec ces derniers. Le rôle principal de ces comités consiste à foumir un forum public, unique et important, dans le but d'étudier plus à fond les questions identifiées par les vérificateurs. Leur efficacité ne découle donc pas néessairement des rapports écrits, mais plutôt de leurs audiences et de l'interrogatoire des témoins. Alors que certains comités sont clairement plus forts que d'autres pour toutes sortes de raisons, ils ont tous le potentiel d'être puissants. C'est aux législatures, gouvemements, vérificateurs législatifs et aux comités eux‐mêmes qu'il revient de faire usage des capacités uniques des CCP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".