MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169193629 · doi:10.1108/02686900310454165

Controllers or catalysts for change and improvement: would the real value for money auditors please stand up?

2003· article· en· W2169193629 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

VenueManagerial Auditing Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditReputationConfusionAccountingBusinessValue (mathematics)Government (linguistics)Value for moneyPublic relationsEconomicsPublic economicsPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public finance watchdogs and guardians of the public purse. These are just two of the labels branded on Auditors General over the years. Since their initiation into value for money audit only three decades ago, they have continually been exposing cases of public financing laxity. Each time the auditors approach a government organization, their reputation invariably precedes them. But what happens when the controllers decide to turn over a new leaf and become catalysts for change and improvement who have come to help managers improve their public organizations? Auditees, totally unaccustomed to seeking help from auditors, are understandably befuddled. On the other side of the coin, auditors are equally inexperienced at providing assistance to auditees. There is many a slip twixt cup and lip before the role confusion dissipates.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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