MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

eGovernance

2010· book-chapter· en· W2485606918 on OpenAlexaff
Jaro Berce, Sam Lanfranco

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyTransparency (behavior)E-governanceAccountabilityAction planCorporate governanceOpposition (politics)Public relationsEuropean unionDemocracyGovernment (linguistics)E-democracyPolitical scienceBusinessGood governancePublic administrationE-GovernmentEconomicsManagementEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores how to formulate an ICT-enabled eGovernance action plan, including the necessary components of (a) a knowledge management (KM) strategy, and (b) the adoption of a culture of learning organization (LO) behavior. This strategy is based on lessons learned from a model designed and tested on data from 140 Slovenian public agencies. Slovenia, a small transition economy newly admitted to the European Union, faces both its own demands and the demands of the EU for good governance. Slovenia offers lessons relevant for both developed and developing countries. There are three progressively complex stages when integrating information and communication technologies (ICT) into the operations of government. They start with the elementary process of integrating ICT into previously paper based governmental administrative systems (iGovernment), proceed to the online provision of government services to others (e-government), and finally arrive at online efforts to enhance accountability, consultation and transparency as part of good governance (eGovernance). This chapter concludes with the argument that successful eGovernance works hand-in-hand with e-democracy, whereas failed eGovernance will position eDemocracy as a force in opposition to the behaviour of Government.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.021

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207