The governance of major public infrastructure projects: the process of translation
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the process of translation of an institutionalized governance framework as adapted to a major project in practice. Although infrastructure projects have been studied for decades, most studies have emphasized economic or contingency-based perspectives. Of those studies, some researchers have focused on governance frameworks for public infrastructure projects, and their impact for shaping the front-end phase of those projects. Yet, little is known about the way actors translate and enact those governance frameworks into practice. Understanding this translation process will lead to a better understanding of the overall performance of major infrastructure projects. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative research is based on a case study of one public infrastructure project in the health sector in Quebec, Canada. Through non-participant observation and interviews, the planning phase of the project is presented as it unfolds. Findings The process of translation is presented, from the ostensive, institutionalized governance framework, to appropriation into performative practices, which resulted in 12 specific practices: four “structuring” practices at the institutional level, five “normalizing” practices at the organizational level and three “facilitating” practices at the project level. Originality/value The main contribution of this paper is to enrich our understanding of the governance of major public infrastructure projects with process- and practice-based theories.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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