Designing a merit‐based process for appointing boards of abcs: Lessons from the Nova Scotia reform experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Efforts to design merit‐based appointment systems for the boards of government agencies, boards and commissions (abcs) have gained greater priority over the past decade in order to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the political process, improve the governance of organizations operating at arm's length from ministers, and reduce the risks to the public interest and public purse that come with incompetent boards. The Nova Scotia reform experience in this regard is instructive because this province's appointment regime not only encompasses a legislative committee veto over ministerial appointments, a power unique to this province in the Canadian and comparative Westminster systems, but also uniquely sets the merit standard as relative‐merit, that is, the appointment of the most qualified of all applicants, and not merely a qualified candidate. This article reviews this provincial experience and concludes that a merit‐based appointment system that pursues relative merit can be created but only by restricting the authority of ministers to a veto over the appointment of candidates nominated by the abcs themselves. Sommaire: Ces dix demières années, les efforts déployés pour concevoir des systemes de nomination au mérite pour les conseils d'administration d'organismes, des régies et des commissions du gouvernement ont obtenu une priorité beaucoup plus grande, et cela, afin de rehausser la confiance du public envers I'intégrite du processus politique, d'ameliorer la gouvernance d'organismes fonctionnant sans contrôle ministériel direct et de réduire les risques que représentent les conseils incompétents pour le bien et les deniers publics. L'expérience de la réforme entreprise en NouvelleÉcosse est à cet égard instructive pour les partisans de la réforme. Le régime de nomination de cette province comporte non seulement un droit de veto de la part d'un comité législatif sur les nominations ministéielles, pouvoir unique à cette province dans le systéme canadien et le systéme comparatif de Westminster, mais il établit également la norme de mérite comme un mérite relatif, c'est‐à‐dire la nomination de la personne la mieux qualifiée parmi tous les candidats et non simplement la nomination d'une personne qualifiée. Le présent article examine I'expérience de cette province et conclut qu'un système de nomination au mérite visant le mérite relatif peut être mis en place, mais seulernent à condition de limiter le pouvoir des ministres à opposer leur veto à la nomination de candidats par les organismes, régies et commissions gouvernementaux.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".