Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract:In this article, the discipline/profession of Canadian public administration is compared to its American counterpart. As parallel universes of inquiry and application, both have evolved from administration to management to governance. In spite of this and other similarities, possibilities for greater collaboration and cross‐fertilization have been overlooked and impeded by what the author calls an American attitude of “benign neglect.” The Canadian study of public administration reciprocates with self‐sufficiency and an enviable coherence in spite of similar divisions in the two countries between political science/policy and generic management approaches. To confirm the neglect, the author conducted a mini‐survey of Canadian content in the journalPublic Administration Reviewand in papers presented at U.S. conferences and – for contrast – of American content in the journalCanadian Public Administrationand at Canadian conferences. Modest proposals for rectifying the evident parallel but separate trajectories are suggested through greater interaction that would enrich both study and practice. Exploring some of the overlooked successes in Canadian administration would be useful for students of public administration in the U.S. Sommaire :Le présent article établit une comparaison entre la discipline/la profession de l'administration publique canadienne et son homologue aux États‐Unis. En tant qu'univers parallèles d'enquêtes et d'application, les deux ont évolué, passant de l'administration au management, puis à la gouvernance. Malgré cela et d'autres similarités, les possibilités d'une plus grande collaboration et d'enrichissement mutuel ont été ignorées et empêchées par une attitude américaine qualifiée par l'auteur de «négligence bienveillante ». L'étude canadienne de l'administration publique a réagi par l'autosuffisance et une cohérence enviable malgré des divisions similaires dans les deux pays entre les approches de sciences politiques et de gestion générique. Pour confirmer cette négligence, l'auteur a entrepris un mini sondage sur le contenu canadien dans la revuePublic Administration Reviewet lors de conférences américaines et, par contraste, sur le contenu américain dansAdministration publique du Canadaet lors de conférences canadiennes. De modestes propositions sont faites pour rectifier les trajectoires évidentes, parallèles, et cependant distinctes, suggérant une plus grande interaction qui enrichirait à la fois la théorie et la pratique. Il serait utile pour les étudiants américains en administration publique d'examiner en profondeur certains des succès ignorés de l'administration canadienne.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".