HOW NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND CORPORATE CULTURE ARE TRICKLING DOWN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high point of Quebec’s trade-union, feminist, community, and nation alist movements occurred in the wake of the American civil rights movement, of decolonization, and of global student movements in the 1960s. The latter spawned practices of direct democracy, self-management, and popular educa tion based on a perspective of social justice and social change. The first groups emerging from these movements, alternately referred to as “citizens’ committees,” “grassroots organizations,” and “community organizations,” embodied the ideal of participatory democracy and the ethical ideal of social responsibility. While these organizations were constituted autonomously, their political struggle over the years brought them incomplete, but relatively regular, public funding. With the emergence of neoliberalism, as well as targeted funding and government priorities based on more “productive” and quantifiable outputs, their social change perspective has been eroded and these community groups are losing their initial autonomy. As such, many community organizations are gradually incorporating managerial practices from the realm of private corporations. In an effort to shed light on this erosion of social change practices within Quebec community organizations, it is necessary to analyze how several of these community groups have, to various degrees, adopted some of the management techniques, practices, and culture of corporations through the implementation of New Public Management methods by government. We will also illustrate the challenges that this situation entails for local grassroots democracy. This article focuses on the Quebec experience while being aware,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".