MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555088031 · doi:10.1111/capa.12026

The permanence of temporary services: The reliance of<scp>C</scp>anadian federal departments on policy and management consultants

2013· article· en· W2555088031 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Howlett, Andrea Migone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCorporatizationBenchmarkingBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)LegislatureAccountingPublic administrationPublic relationsFinancePolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of external consultants in government management and policy realms has drawn increasing attention in many countries including C anada. Studies were undertaken internationally in the 1990s and 2000s as legislatures and their accounting arms became concerned with the hidden costs of “corporatization” of the public service and tried to expand benchmarking measures for government efficiency to include external consultants. Accounting for these increases in expenditures on consultancy, however, remains a challenge given the state of governmental financial and personnel reporting. The data on which existing reports have been drawn are very weak. This article examines results using a new dataset compiled from Proactive Disclosure reports in order to help clarify the situation of policy and management consulting in C anada at the departmental level.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207