MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084012247 · doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00129

Banishing Bureaucracy or Hatching a Hybrid? The CanadianFood Inspection Agency and the Politics of Reinventing Government

2000· article· en· W2084012247 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael J. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueGovernance · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsBureaucracyPoliticsAgency (philosophy)Public administrationStaffingGovernment (linguistics)MandateEconomicsBusinessPolitical scienceManagementSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is a means to overcoming long‐standing bureaucratic politics while attaining some major policy ends.Contrary to some of the new public management bravado of transforming the public sector, the CFIA is not a bureaucratic revolution in reshaping the Canadian State. Changes in scientific staffing, funding, and inspection have been more incremental than fundamental. Moreover, the CFIA is something less than the special and separate operating agency models discussed in the alternative service delivery literature in terms of autonomy and market orientation, but something more autonomous and entrepreneurial than traditional government departments. These organizational and managerial reforms are modest extensions providing a means for achieving economies and enhanced effectiveness in carrying out the mandate of safety, consumer protection, and market access for Canadian food, animal, plant, and forestry products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.055
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGovernanceSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207