Accountability in a collectivized environment: From <scp>G</scp>lassco to digital public administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building on the 1962 G lassco C ommission report, this article argues that the duality of collective and individual ministerial responsibility in the C anadian W estminster model is under‐recognized and remains highly relevant. While reforms since the 1960s favoured individual responsibility, the growing impact of information and communications technologies ( ICTs ) gives renewed significance to collective responsibility. This article reviews accountability challenges arising from ICT ‐influenced changes in the federal government's organization and relationships, including the shift from a traditional vertical departmental model towards an increasingly horizontal one. Accountability for this re‐collectivized environment risks ineffectiveness for two reasons: the prime minister's view of his own role, and Parliament's difficulty in dealing with horizontal issues. If the risks are not recognized, C anadian democracy will be diminished. Sommaire En se fondant sur le rapport G lassco de 1962, le présent article soutient que la dualité de la responsabilité ministérielle collective et individuelle dans le modèle de W estminster au C anada n'est pas suffisamment reconnue et demeure hautement pertinente. Alors que, depuis les années 1970, les réformes ont encouragé la responsabilité individuelle, l'incidence croissante des technologies de l'information et des communications ( TIC ) donne une importance renouvelée à la responsabilité collective. Cet article passe en revue les défis de la responsabilité découlant des changements influencés par les TIC dans l'organisation et les relations du gouvernement fédéral, y compris le glissement d'un modèle ministériel vertical traditionnel vers un modèle de plus en plus horizontal. L'imputabilité pour cet environnement re‐collectivisé risque d'entraîner l'inefficacité pour deux raisons : la perception qu'a le Premier ministre de son propre rôle, et la difficulté qu'a le Parlement à traiter les questions horizontales. Faute de reconnaître les risques, c'est la démocratie canadienne qui sera perdante.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".