Evidence in Public Management: A Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, policy makers, particularly in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, have struggled with management and civil service reform (see Figure 8.1), intending to improve their effectiveness, often calling for sound evidence to inform administration, policy, and practice (see also GAO 1995). Analyses from Canada and Britain are representative. In 1983, Canada’s auditor general, for example, identified three constraints to effective government management (as cited in GAO 1997): political priorities had a major adverse impact on productive management; managers felt unduly constrained by administrative procedures and conflicting accountability requirements; and there were too few incentives for productive management but many disincentives. A report for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1988 found similar constraints (reported in State Services Commission 2005):s ECAUSEOFANEMPHASISONPOLICYFOCUSONSERVICEDELIVERYWASINSUFlCIENT s ! SHORTAGE OFMANAGEMENT SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE AMONG CIVIL SERVANTSabounded. s 3HORT TERMPOLITICALPRIORITIESSQUEEZEDOUTLONG TERMPLANNING s 4HEREWASTOOMUCHEMPHASISONSPENDINGMONEYANDNOTENOUGHONGETTINGresults. s 4HECIVILSERVICEWASTOOLARGEANDDIVERSETOMANAGEASASINGLEORGANIZATION s #ENTRALRULESTOOKAWAYTHEmEXIBILITYMANAGERSNEEDEDTOMANAGEFORRESULTSReforms fall naturally, but not entirely, into three approaches: performance management; good management practice; and performance, budgeting, and management integration.
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 | 0.050 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.048 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".