MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230170495 · doi:10.1111/faam.12081

Democratic Accountability During Performance Audits Under Pressure: A Recipe for Institutional Hypocrisy?

2016· article· en· W2230170495 on OpenAlex
Danielle Morin

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

VenueFinancial Accountability and Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocrisyAccountabilityAuditSecrecyParliamentDemocracyPolitical scienceTransparency (behavior)Administration (probate law)AccountingPublic administrationLaw and economicsLawPoliticsBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study shows how the tensions between transparency and secrecy are likely to engender ‘institutional hypocrisy’ in the accountability process taking place during Supreme Audit Institutions’ performance audits. The examination of relations between the French Cour des comptes , Administration and Parliament has revealed gaps between Administration and Parliamentarians’ discourse and action, secrets and things left unsaid. This impression of Administration and Parliamentarians’ full participation in this democratic process may give to citizens a false sense of security leading them to believe that accounts are indeed rendered, which is not actually the case. Rather, the appearances of functional democracy have been preserved.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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