MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond Westminster governance: Bringing politics and public service into the networked era

2008· article· en· W2162984083 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePoliticsLegitimacyPublic administrationHumanitiesParliamentAccountabilityLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The underlying premise of this article stems from the following question: is our Westminster, parliamentary model of democratic governance and administration adaptable for contemporary realities and emerging challenges? By way of response, the author attempts to expose what is wrong with the current model and sketches what changes to our governing institutions must be envisioned in order to safeguard political legitimacy and administrative competence in a world that is increasingly networked. Central to this discussion is the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and accountability and an appropriate parcelling of roles and authorities to public servants and politicians. Equally important is the rise of the Internet and new forms of political mobilization outside of government, on the one hand, and the potential for more direct mechanisms of public engagement, on the other hand. Without significant innovation and reform, Parliament and the federal government instead face a steady erosion of political and human capital that cannot be reversed until the country is convinced that 1) a new approach to governing is a realistic proposition, and 2) citizens will play an important role in designing this new approach. Sommaire : La prémisse sous‐jacente du présent article découle de la question suivante : est‐ce que notre modèle de Westminster de gouvernance et d'administration démocratique parlementaire peut s'adapter aux réalités contemporaines et aux défis émergents? En guise de réponse, l'article essaie d'exposer ce qui ne ne fonctionne pas dans le modèle actuel et donne un aperçu du genre de changements que nous devons envisager pour nos institutions dirigeantes afin de sauvegarder la légitimité politique et la compétence administrative dans un monde de plus en plus réseauté. Au centre de cette discussion se trouvent la doctrine de la responsabilité et de l'imputabilité ministérielle et une répartition appropriée des rôles et des pouvoirs des fonctionnaires et des responsables politiques. Tout aussi importants sont le rôle accru d'Internet et de nouvelles formes de mobilisation politique en dehors du gouvernement d'une part, et la possibilité de recourir à des mécanismes de participation publique plus directe, d'autre part. Par contre, à défaut d'innovations et de réformes importantes, le Parlement et le gouvernement fédéral font face à une érosion continue du capital politique et humain qui ne peut être inversée tant que le pays ne sera pas convaincu : a) qu'une nouvelle manière de gouverner est une proposition réaliste; et b) que les citoyens joueront un rôle important en concevant cette nouvelle démarche.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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