MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583415624

The Relational Dynamics of E-Governance

2016· article· en· W2583415624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Roy

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Performance & Management Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBanking Systems and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningRhetorical questionGovernment (linguistics)Public sectorPublic relationsCorporate governanceProcess (computing)Dynamics (music)Public administrationPrivate sectorNew public managementBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementComputer scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of e-government unleashed a rhetorical promise perhaps unparalleled in previous phases of public sector reform. Client-centric government made possible through the advent of integrated portals, new forms of public-private partnerships, and better overall performance through the leveraging of on-line applications and new information technologies (IT) are often-heard claims. This case study presents the combined role of portals and partnerships in one segment of the transformative experience promised by the vision of e-government. Ottawa’s experience may provide insights for other governments in the process of moving on-line, and it can also be helpful in testing some of the conceptual claims put forth by both proponents and critics of e-government as a theoretical model for public sector reform.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.028
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Performance & Management ReviewSame topicBanking Systems and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207