Governance schemes for major public investment projects: A comparative study of principles and practices in six countries.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report compares the Norwegian scheme for quality assurance of major public projects, also referred to as the State Project Model, to similar schemes in five other OECD countries, i.e. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and Canada (Quebec). The schemes have many features in common – all of them were introduced after the turn of the millennium and place governance responsibility at a high level in the political system. There are also a number of differences, for example with regard to who performs quality assurance, the delineation between technical matters and politics, as well as the scope of such schemes. The study shows that Norway and the Nordic countries have opted for schemes that are fairly simple, with intervention points in the front-end phase only and not during implementation, unlike the other countries. The study is primarily an overview, and it is too early to say anything about the effects of the other schemes, which are more recent than the Norwegian scheme.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it