MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741934693 · doi:10.1177/0020852317709081

Rethink, reframe and reinvent: serving in the twenty-first century

2017· article· en· W2741934693 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyne Bourgon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Administrative Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingHonourState (computer science)DemocracyPoliticsPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPublic administrationCorporate governancePolitical economyLawEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2006 I had the honour of giving the Fifth Braibant Lecture for the International Institute of Administrative Sciences. That discussion identified a need to rethink public administration. In reality, this is only a small part of the rethinking needed to prepare government and society for the challenges of the twenty-first century. There is a need to rethink the architecture and functioning of the social, economic and political state; for instance, to critically examine the assumption that innovation, productivity, employment and income growth work synergistically together. A clear-eyed diagnostic of the benefits of global trade and the costs of local dislocation is long overdue if government is to mitigate its impact for the most vulnerable in society and alleviate public fears about the future. There is also a need to articulate in contemporary terms what conditions contribute to the governance of open, pluralistic and democratic societies. Responding to challenging emerging trends will require reconciling in new ways individual interests with ambitious collective aspirations, rediscovering the irreplaceable contribution of the state and articulating a concept of that state adapted to serving in the twenty-first century. This is neither an overbearing nor a minimalist state but one with sufficient confidence in its role to serve the collective interest. This article is an invitation to rethink the modern state, reframe our expectations for a well-performing society and economy, and reinvent in contemporary terms what it means to be part of a modern, liberal, pluralistic and democratic society.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.077
Scholarly communication0.0200.019
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Administrative SciencesSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207