Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital‐era governance
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
Abstract Furthering the accountability of elected governments and the public administration apparatus which serves them is a fundamental principle of democratic societies. Over the last fifty years, there have been significant debates about how to operationalize and balance the principles of accountability in our federal governance system. The emergence and proliferation of Web 2.0 capabilities and advocates for their use in government has led to new rounds of experimentation, initiatives and reform under the banner of Government 2.0 in many jurisdictions. This article surveys the Canadian and international literature on accountability in the digital era, including contributions from scholars with interests in information technology, transparency and digital culture, to identify whether Canada is lagging or leading international contributions in this area. It sets out a research agenda inspired by the concepts of interactive, dynamic, and citizen‐initiated accountability (Schillemans, Van Twist, and Vanhommerig ).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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