MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169645390 · doi:10.1177/0160323x0804000102

Functions of E-Government: A Study of Municipal Practices

2008· article· en· W2169645390 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

VenueState and Local Government Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationState (computer science)Local governmentCorporate governanceDemocracyPublic sectorBusinessPolitical sciencePoliticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

nologies by government. E-government is part of a bigger movement toward public sector reform, which is driven by technol ogy and information systems. Technology has the potential to take government in new directions and transform governance (M?lki?, Anttiroiko, and Savolainen 2004), and many examples continue to arise reflecting this transformation. The majority of e-govern ment research has focused on highly popu lated municipalities and practices at the state and federal levels. The findings of the study presented here contribute to the research on e-government by highlighting the practices and trends in municipalities with populations of fewer than 50,000 residents. A 2005 survey of New Jersey municipalities was conducted to identify e-government practices and chief ad ministrative officers' perceptions of the use of technology within a framework of four distinct functions of e-government: e-organization, e services, e-partnering, and e-democracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.278 · 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