Mapping alternative systems of accountability in residential long-term care in British Columbia and Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cases of abuse and neglect frequently arise in residential long-term care facilities. This thesis studies the systems of accountability within the residential long-term care sectors of British Columbia and Ontario. Using structured comparative case studies and documentary analysis it categorizes existing mechanisms of accountability into the five conceptions of accountability established by Bruce Stone. These are: parliamentary control, managerialism, judicial quasi-judicial, constituency relations and market. It then applies Richard Mulgan’s theory of accountability deficits to identify areas where the current mechanisms fail. Overall, it finds that contemporary reliance on alternative service delivery for the delivery of residential long-term care has significantly increased the need for new and different systems of accountability. The thesis then assesses how mechanisms of accountability can be adapted while maintaining a system that includes alternative service delivery. Changes will require clear definitions of the role of accountability mechanisms and emphasis on preventative mechanisms. Improving systems of accountability in long-term care is important, as there will be increased pressure on such systems from an ageing Canadian population. This thesis contributes to the Canadian public administration literature by examining the relationship between alternative service delivery and a complex hybrid accountability system.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".