RETHINKING E‐GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FROM A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of information and communication technology (ICT), particularly that related to the consolidation of the internet as a social and business networking medium, has impelled governments towards enabling e‐government (e‐gov) programs to transform the future of the delivery of public services. E‐gov has a clear economic, social, and political impact that should be monitored in order to steer the design of effective public policies. In this article, we argue that evaluating the impact of e‐gov entails a complex process of e‐gov performance assessment that should take into account the perspective of citizens. Supported by a framework that combines two theoretical views, namely the structurationist view of technology and the social shaping of technology, we propose a model that consolidates nine performance dimensions. This model is the result of empirical work based on an in‐depth analysis of interviews with relevant social groups regarding their perceptions of the technological artefacts of e‐gov.
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 | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".