Reciprocal accountability and fiduciary duty: Implications for indigenous health in Canada, New Zealand and Australia
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
There is growing interest among public servants, Indigenous organisations, and scholars in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the idea of shifting from classical New Public Management accountability models to models that reflect mutual or reciprocal accountability as a means of delivering more effective and responsive health care to Indigenous communities. However, little progress has been made with respect to developing and implementing workable reciprocal accountability models. In this paper, we argue that a consideration of Indigenous perspectives on reciprocity and accountability is an essential, yet mainly overlooked, component of the development of effective and appropriate accountability models between Indigenous peoples and statebased funders. Indeed, many Indigenous peoples have long histories of engaging in reciprocity-based relationships with each other and their environments. Drawing from Indigenous knowledge in this regard offers novel insights that can inform how models of reciprocity are constructed and understood. More specifically, we argue that consideration of Indigenous perspectives on treaties and treaty-making as a way to interpret the substance of mutual roles and responsibilities enables a shift to models of reciprocal accountability that are based on the mutual building of long-term, trust-based relationships, while also providing a frame that emphasises the maintenance of the sovereignty of the entities that are party to such relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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