Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Why are cabinet decision‐making systems designed the way they are? Traditional approaches to this question stress the importance of representational imperatives (i.e., region, language and gender), the need for managerial capacity and collegiality in complex organizations, or a particular government's fiscal or policy program. While these approaches have merit, they fail to pay sufficient attention to the fact that cabinet decision‐making systems are in the first instance very intimate reflections and extensions of the political instincts, personal aptitudes, and governing experience of first ministers. The author sets out to understand recent reforms to Ontario cabinet decision‐making in precisely this way ‐ how did Premier Michael Harris' sense of his government's mandate, his personal approach to decision‐making, and the practical lessons learned over the course of his government's first mandate influence the design of Ontario's cabinet decision‐making system between 1995 and 1999? This article begins with a short history of Ontario's cabinet decision‐making system, focusing on the period from 1968 to 1995. It then provides details of reforms introduced between 1995 and 1999 and concludes with some thoughts on how Premier Harris' political instincts, personal aptitudes, and governing experience influenced these reforms. Sommaire: Pourquoi les systèmes de prise de décisions du Cabinet sont‐ils conçus comme ils le sont? Les réponses traditionnelles à cette question soulignent l'impor‐tance des impératifs de représentation (c.‐à‐d. la région, la langue et le sexe), le besoin de compétence en matière de gestion et la collégialité dans les organismes complexes, ou bien un programme politique ou budgétaire particulier du gouvernement. Ces approches sont valables, mais elles ne tiennent pas suffisamment compte du fait que les systemes de prise de décisions du Cabinet sont, avant tout, le fruit de reflexions très approfondies et d'instincts politiques, d'aptitudes personnelles, et de l'expérience gouvernementale des premiers ministres. L'auteur de cet article essaie de comprendre, précisément dans ce sens, les récentes réformes en matière de prise de décisions au Cabinet de 1'Ontario: comment est‐ce que l'idée qu'a Michael Harris du mandat de son gouvernement, son approche personnelle face à la prise de décisions, et les leçons pratiques tirées de son premier mandat (1995–1999) ont‐elles influencé la conception du système de prise de décisions du Cabinet de l'Ontario? L'auteur commence par brosser un bref historique du système de prise de décisions du Cabinet de l'Ontario, en se penchant tout particulièrement sur la période allant de 1968 A 1995. Ensuite, il présente en détail les réformes introduites de 1995 à 1999 et conclut par quelques réflexions sur la manière dont les instincts politiques du Premier ministre Harris, ses aptitudes personnelles et son expérience du gouvernement ont influencé ces réformes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".