MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108801668 · doi:10.1177/0020852305059599

People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain?

2005· article· en· W2108801668 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ralph Heintzman, Brian Marson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Administrative Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsTreasury Board of Canada SecretariatPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sectorService delivery frameworkPublic valuePublic relationsBusinessContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)Service (business)Public trustPrivate sectorPublic serviceMarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the evidence for the existence of a ‘public sector service value chain’, offering a new way of thinking about what Bouckaert and his colleagues have called the micro-performance approach to improving trust and confidence in public institutions (Bouckaert et al., 2002). In particular, the article focuses on the role of service delivery in enhancing citizen trust and confidence. But it does so in the context of a broader model, one that links service delivery to other important aspects of management performance, especially people management. The article refers to this model as the ‘public sector service value chain’, drawing on work by Heskett and others in the private sector (Heskett et al., 1994, 1997). The article reviews evidence for links between employee engagement (satisfaction and commitment) and client satisfaction in the public sector, and between public sector client satisfaction and citizen trust and confidence. The article identifies the five main ‘drivers’ of service satisfaction in the public sector, and reviews both purported ‘drivers’ of employee engagement as well as data documenting the influence service delivery appears to have on citizens’ trust and confidence in Canada. The article outlines a forward research agenda, to identify the drivers of staff satisfaction and commitment, as well as drivers of trust and confidence in public institutions, and to determine whether the proposed links in the ‘public sector service value chain’ can be empirically validated.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.020
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations166
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Administrative SciencesSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207