MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E-Government Adoption in Canadian Municipal Governments

2007· book-chapter· en· W2497488803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher G. Reddick

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsE-GovernmentGovernment (linguistics)BusinessLocal governmentSocioeconomic statusPaymentPublic administrationTransactional leadershipPublic relationsPolitical scienceFinanceInformation and Communications TechnologySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Ontario, Canada’s municipal e-government adoption. This chapter specifically focuses on how e-government has increased citizen-initiated contacts with these local governments. This study uses survey data of these local governments to determine the key factors that predict increased citizen contact with e-government. What these municipal governments most commonly are doing is informational e-government, such as providing downloadable forms for manual completion. Transactional e-government is done less often, with very few local governments offering online payment of taxes, for example. The regression results indicated that offering more online services or e-services and having a separate information technology (IT) department developing the e-government budget increased citizen contact with e-government. The traditional factors that are used to explain citizen-initiated contact, such as socioeconomic status of the community, were not found to have any impact on increasing citizen contact with e-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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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