MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The snakes and ladders of accountability: Contradictions between contracting and collaboration for Canada's voluntary sector

2004· article· en· W2119215203 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityVoluntary sectorCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePublic administrationEconomic rentPublic sectorBusinessEconomicsFinanceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Although governing in Canada is in transition towards a model of horizontal “governance” that emphasizes collaboration with a variety of non‐governmental actors, the contracting culture and its associated accountability regime remain a legacy of “new public management.” As part of this transition, however, contracting is being used not only as a means to control performance but also as a governance tool to guide the development of more collaborative relationships between government as a whole and entire sectors. In its relationship with the voluntary sector, the Government of Canada is caught in these contradictory trends ‐ between the control of contracting and the collaboration inherent in a governance contract. This article first examines the impact on voluntary organizations of the very stringent federal rneasures over contribution agreements that were brought in as a reaction to crisis in 2000. The effects are found to be significant and overwhelmingly negative, imposing direct financial costs on voluntary organizations and stifling innovation. The authors then consider whether the implementation of the Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector and its Code of Good Practice on Funding might mitigate the negative effects of these accountability measures. Sommaire: S'il est vrai que le Canada s'oriente vers un modèle de « gouvemance horizontale « privilégiant la collaboration avec différents acteurs non‐gouvernementaux, la culture de marchés (contrats) et le régime d'imputabilité qui I'accompagne n'en demeurent pas moins un legs de la nouvelle gestion publique. Toutefois, dans le cadre de cette transition, les marchés (contrats), en plus de servir de moyen de contrôler le rendement, sont aussi un outil de gouvernance pour accroître la collaboration entre le gouvernement dam son ensemble et des secteurs tout entiers. Dam sa relation avec le secteur bénévole, le gowernement du Canada est pris dans ces tendances contradictoires ‐ entre le contrôle des marchés (contrats) et la collabordtion inhérente à un contrat de gouvernance. L'article se penche en premier sur l'incidence pour les organismes bénévoles des mesures contraignantes imposées par le gouvernement fédéral relativement aux ententes de contribution introduites pour fairc face a la crise qui a sévi en 2000. Ces impacts sont à la fois considérables et des plus négatifs, imposant des frais de financement directs aux organismes bénévoles et suffoquant l'innovation. Les auteurs cherchent ensuite a déterminer si la mise en application de l'accord passé entre le gouvernement du Canada et le secteur bénévole et son Code de boMes pratiques de financement pourraient atténuer certains effets négatifs de ces mesures d'imputabilité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.220 · 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